~ 
oes pre. 


BAS 
Gas 


Ne 


: 
5. 
i 
‘ 
i 
i 


fe 
i 
fs 
coe 
Fe 


ae eat 


a 


i 


Ht 
ny 


te 
te 
Be 


iy 


re 


iG 


my 


Ries 


Gist 
Tee 


Stes 


eres 


gn iba els tet 


Hite eee 
rated eth 


. Sentra 


Eaea 
i? a yr S 


Petits 


i flay bgt 
aye paris + 


eine, . 
te Cen + rate 
Taps ecaremirabar a Fad 
a steetatit 
Pha taacaoe tal ana oo 
Ser tats tee 
toh eieatr case 


uf at Nz fe 
nyects 
etree sicher Ne 
tispstthdtg : a : 
seer aS aha i is 
t reney 4 
palit 


teats 
Paks 


estiee 


UG 
ithe 


Ph 


Fir at 
aperiss 


easeeagrtletea 
sete a 


¥ 
ce 
Rahs rt 


on OF PRINCE 


’, DEP2O 1910 


i. 
AS RN 
SOL agieny cise 


ee 


BT Liloop 7 1 9t9. v6 
Pohle, Joseph, 1852-1922. 
Mariology 


Mihognt ‘ 
< apr tes 
a 


Te? ie : : dtl 


4 f ‘ tw 
. Seyi Si 

; are ahs Nom Ue ae 

eae iy pba Miles, ¥ 


t 


THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOG- 
MATIC TEXT-BOOKS 


God: His Knowability, Essence, and At- 
tributes. 2nd ed., vi & 479 pp., net $2.00. 


The Divine Trinity. 2nd ed., iv & 297 pp,. 
net $1.50. 


God the Author of Nature and the Super- 
natural. 2nd ed., v & 365 pp., net $1.75. 


Christology. A Dogmatic Treatise on 
the Incarnation. iv & 309 pp., net $1.50. 


Soteriology. A Dogmatic Treatise on the 
Redemption. 2nd ed., iv & 167 pp., net 
$1.00. 


Mariology. A Dogmatic Treatise on the 
B. V. Mary. With an Appendix on 
the Worship of the Saints, Relics, and 
Images. 2nd ed., iv & 185 pp., net $1.00. 


Grace: Actual and Habitual. iv & 443 
pp., net $2.00. 


The Sacraments in General. Baptism. 
Confirmation. iv & 328 pp., net $1.50. 


The Holy Eucharist. iv & 408 pp., net 
$1.75. 
Penance. iv & 270 pp., $1.50 net. 


Extreme Unction. Holy Orders. Matri- 
mony. iv & 249 pp., $1.50 net. 
Eschatology. iv & 164 pp., $1.50 net. 


The Whole Set, $18 net 


aaa OF PIES 
{4 x¥ 


Z 


10, 


MARIOLOG 


A DOGMATIC TREATISE ON THE 
- BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF GOD 


WITH AN APPENDIX ON THE WORSHIP OF 
THE SAINTS, RELICS, AND IMAGES 


BY y 


THE RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH POHLE, P#_D., D.D. 


FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AT ST. 
JOSEPH’S SEMINARY, LEEDS (ENGLAND), LATER PRO- 
FESSOR OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY IN THE 
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 


ADAPTED AND EDITED 
BY 


ARTHUR PREUSS 


THIRD, REVISED EDITION 


B. HERDER BOOK CO. 


17 SOUTH Broapway, ST, Louis, Mo. 
AND 
68 GreaT RussELL St. Lonpon, W. C. 


1919 


NIHIL OBSTAT 
Sti. Ludovici, die 11 Feb. 1919 


Ff. G. Holweck, 
Censor Librorum 


IMPRIMATUR 
Stt. Ludovici, die 12 Feb. 1919 


i Joannes J. Glennon, 
Archiepiscopus 
Sti. Ludovics 


Copyright, 1914 
by 
Joseph Gummersbach 


All rights reserved 
Printed in U.S. A. 


First Edition 1914 
Second Edition 1916 
Third Edition 1919 


BECKTOLD 
PRINTING & BOOK MFG. CO. 
ST. LOUIS, U.S. A. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 

PNPM OE CL POUING Gir Re oN shin Vi UanEH wrth x gslah Ned oI oA KANE Tae Ratt a Nae 

Part I. Mary’s DivinE MoTHERHOOD AS THE SOURCE OF ALL 
HERI PREROGATIVESH Ski si Ge Wi Ue hari Hern iad te coh hit 


Gait Mary’ the «Mother, (of /;Godyy ei ae rei aea e NA 
Cu. II. Mary’s Dignity as Mother of God and the Graces 


Attached to Her Divine Motherhood . . . . 15 
§ 1. The Objective Dignity of Mary’s Divine Mother- 
TB aOAY: GIAO ERR ICOM TSN LB GARRITY CR NTECQRS MENS AML EPS 8) 
§ 2, Mary’s Fulness of Grace... +. ON yt an a ook 
Parrill. MARY'S) SPECIAL, PREROGATIVES {4) ec is Siugea tren Se. 


Cu. I. The Negative Prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin 38 


§ 1. Mary’s Immaculate Conception . . . + . + 39 
$' 2, Mary's Sinlessness '.) SRA S AMEIE NAN TU ISR EUS ARAN (ag 
§ 3. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity NUH AUR ia ste: 


§ 4. Mary’s Bodily Assumption into es ACER 0 


Cu. II. The Positive Prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin 120 
§ 1. Mary’s Secondary Mediatorship . . . - - . 2! 
§ 2. The Cult of the Blessed Virgin . . . . - © 133 


APPENDIX. ON THE WorSHIP OF THE SAINTS, RELICS, AND 
TREASON ee ACE ANWR et otal Ube Si ty Weiic) WenlweiRTe ae 


CH.\-1.. The Worship ofthe Saints). (ny en ieee) 140 
PGE TE They Worship) of pRelica, Shoo ealhan Ue eng 253 
@u clits che Worship of mages iis eu a seks nate pvas ee LOS 


INDEX e e ° ° ° o~ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° e ° ® ° 181 


INTRODUCTION 


Mariology is that part of Dogmatic Theology 
which treats of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the 
Mother of our Divine Redeemer. 

Mariology is closely related to both Christol- 
ogy and Soteriology.”. Mary is truly Deipara 
because Christ is truly Godman. As His mother 
she is the mother of our Redeemer, and thus in- 
timately bound up with the atonement. 

The chief prerogative of the Blessed Virgin iS 
her divine motherhood. From it flow all her 
other prerogatives. Hence Mariology naturally 
falls into two main divisions: (1) The divine 
motherhood of Mary considered as the source of 
all her prerogatives, and (2) These prerogatives 
considered in themselves. 


1 Pohle-Preuss, Christology. A 2 Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology. A 
Dogmatic Treatise on the Incarna- Dogmatic Treatise on the Redemp- 
tion, 2nd ed., St, Louis 1916. tion, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1916, 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding trom 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/mariologydogmati00pohl_1 


PARTI 


MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD AS 
THE SOURCE OF ALL HER 
PREROGATIVES 


The Blessed Virgin Mary is really and truly 
the Mother of God. This fact is the source and 
font of all her privileges. The dignity of divine 
motherhood has its correlative in a series of su- 
pernatural gifts, which by a general term we may 
describe as “fulness of grace” (plenitudo 
gratiae ). 


CHAPTER a 


MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD 


1. THe Heresy or NEsToRIANISM.—The 
Ebionites, Photinus, and Paul of Samosata had 
undermined the dignity of Mary by attacking the 
Divinity of Jesus Christ; Nestorianism directly 
assailed the dogma of her divine motherhood. 

a) Nestorius was a pupil of Theodore of Mop- 
suestia,® who held that the Incarnation involved a 
complete transformation of the Logos, and that, 
consequently, Mary was the mother not of God 
(Gordxos), but of a mere man, though this man 
was the bearer of the Divine Logos.* This 
Mariological error naturally developed into the 
Christological heresy that there are two physical 
persons in Christ. 

b) The Third Ecumenical Council, which met 
in Ephesus on Whitsunday, 431, under the presi- 
dency of St. Cyril of Alexandria,’ defined it as an 
article of faith that Mary is really and truly the 


3 Theodore of Mopsuestia was 4Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
born about the year 350. On his pp. 89 sq. 
life and writings cfr. Bardenhewer- 5 Cfr. Funk-Cappadelta, 4 Man- 
Shahan, Patrology, pp. 318 sqq., ual of Church History, Vol. I, pp. 
Freiburg and St. Louis 1908. 156 sq., London 1910 


4 


MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD 5 


mother of God. To emphasize this truth the 
Council employed the dogmatic term 9ore«os, which 
was destined to become a touchstone of the true 
faith and, like opoovows, transsubstantiatio, and ex 
opere operato, played an important part in the his- 
tory of dogma. 

The very first of the anathematisms pronounced 
by the Council of Ephesus reads: “If any one 
does not profess that Emmanuel is truly God, and 
that consequently the Holy Virgin is the Mother 
of God—inasmuch as she gave birth in the flesh 
to the Word of God made flesh, according to what 
is written: “The Word was made flesh’—let him 
be anathema.” ® This important definition was 
reiterated and confirmed by several later councils, 
notably those of Chalcedon (A. D. 451) and Con- 
stantinople (A. D. 553).” 

2. THE DocMa or Mary’s Divine MoruHer- 
HOOD PROVED FROM SACRED SCRIPTURE.—The 
dogma that Mary is the mother of God is clearly 
and explicitly contained in Holy Scripture. 

a) True, the Bible does not employ the formal 
term ‘‘Mother of God,” but refers to the Blessed 


6“ Si quis non confitetur, Deum 
esse veracitter Emmanuel et propterea 
Dei genitricem (@eorékoyv) sanctam 
virginem: peperit (yeyévynKke) enim 
secundum carnem factum Dei Ver- 
bum (cdpxa yeyovéta Tov éx Oeod 
Abyor), secundum quod scriptum 
est: Verbum caro factum est, 
anathema sit.” (Syn. Ephes., can. 
I, apud Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchi- 


ridion Symbolorum, Definitionum 
et Declarationum de Rebus Fides 
et Morum, n. 113, 11th ed. Friburgi 
Brisgoviae 1g11. We shall refer to 
this indispensable collection through- 
out this treatise as ‘’ Denzinger- 
Bannwart.” 

7 Conc. Constantinop. II (Oecum. 
V), apud Denzinger-Bannwart, n,. 
218, 


6 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


Virgin merely as “the mother of Jesus’ ® or at 
most as “mother of the Lord.” ® However, since 
Jesus Christ is true God, all texts that refer to 
Mary as His mother are so many proofs of her 
divine maternity. And such texts abound. 
Thus, while Sacred Scripture represents St. 
Joseph *° merely as the foster-father of our 
Lord,** it attributes to Mary all the ordinary 
functions of motherhood—conception, gestation, 
and parturition.’*? The motherhood of the Virgin 
had been foretold by Isaias: “Behold, a virgin 
shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall 
be called Emmanuel [7. e., God with us].” ** The 
fulfilment of this prophecy was announced 
in almost identical terms by the Archangel Ga- 
briel. Luke I, 31: “Behold, thou shalt conceive in 
thy womb,** and shalt bring forth a son,” and 
thou shalt call his name Jesus;” and the heavenly 
messenger expressly added: “Therefore the 
Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called 
the Son of God.” *® Since Mary gave birth to 
the Son of God, she is really and truly the 
mother of God. St. Paul says in his Epistle to 

8 Cfr. John II, 1; XIX, 26. AS SVE ta Cre ake eas, 


9 Cfr. Luke I, 43. 
10 Cfr. Matth. I, 25; Luke I, 34 
sq. = 
11-Cfr. Luke III, 23: ‘ Et -tpse 
Iesus erat incipiens quasi annorum 
triginta, ut putabatur (as évo- 
pltero) filius Ioseph.” 

14 Cfr. Matth. I, 18 sqq.; Luke 
Tl, 5 sqq. 


S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 


Volo 1, ‘pp. 351 saq.;. New \ York 
1893. 
14“ Concipies in utero  (ovr- 


Aneyn év yaorpi).” 
15“ Paries filium (ré&y vidy).” 
16 “ Filius Dei (vids Qeov).” 


MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD 4 


the Galatians (IV, 4): “When the fulness of © 
time was come, God sent his son, made of a 
woman )°* Tf) the man’ Jesus,(made; obvd 
woman,” is the Son of God, then that ‘“woman’’ 
must be the mother of a Divine Son, and, conse- 
quently, mother of God.*® 

b) The argument from Tradition is most ef- 
fectively presented by showing from the writings 
of the Fathers who flourished before the time of 
Nestorius that Nestorianism and not the Council 
of Ephesus was guilty of innovation. 


a) Primitive Christian belief in the divine mother- 
hood of Mary is evidenced by Christian practice long 
before the time when the faithful began to make their 
belief the subject of reflection, particularly in the recita- 
tion of the Apostles’ Creed and the liturgical prayers 
employed in public worship. The Apostles’ Creed pro- 
fesses faith in “Jesus Christ, His [God the Father’s] 
only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.” This is an unequi- 
vocal assertion of two truths: (1) that the Blessed 
Virgin Mary is the mother of Christ, and (2) that she 
is really and truly the mother of God. The ancient 
liturgies expressly refer to her as Oeordxos or Deipara.! 

17 7rév vidv —abrow yevouevoy 1900. Engl. tr. by Brossart, New 
é€x yuvatkés. York 1913, pp. 89 sqq. 

18 Rom, IX, 5. The Biblical argu- 19 For the proofs of this state- 
ment is fully developed by Bishop A, ment see Renaudot, Collect. Liturg. 


Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter in der Orient, tid.) Pp» 136, 42372: 122} 
Hl. Schrift, pp. 83 sqq., Minster 150, 507, etc., Paris 1716. 


8 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


B) There is direct Patristic evidence to the 
same effect. 

In spite of a few dissenting voices (e. g., The- 
odore of Mopsuestia and other teachers of the 
Antiochene school), the orthodox contemporaries 
of Nestorius confidently appealed to the early 
Fathers in support of their contention. 

The word %oréxos itself originated at Alexan- 
dria in the third century.” 


St. Cyril freely admits that it does not occur in the 
New Testament. But he hastens to add: “ However, 
they have handed down to us the belief [itself], and in 
this sense we have been instructed by the holy Fathers 
[== sacred writers].” *\—“ This name Oeordxos,” he says 
in another place, “was perfectly familiar to the ancient 
Dathers!)?? 

There is a treatise “ On the Mother of God” 2? men- 
tioned in the extracts of Philippus Sidetes,2* and ascribed 
by him to Prierius, a priest of Alexandria in the time 
of Bishop Theonas (281-300); but its authenticity is 
doubtful. We know for certain, however, that, at about 
the same time, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who 
had ordained St. Athanasius to the diaconate in 319, em- 
ployed the term @cordécos in a letter addressed to Alex- 
ander of Constantinople in reference to the heresy of 
Arius. We also have the undoubtedly genuine testi- 
mony of Theodoret of Cyrus, the most violent and at 


20 It first occurs in the works of 22 De Recta Fide ad Regin., c. 9. 
Origen. On the history of the 23 TIepi THs OeordKov- 
term see Newman, Select Treatises 24 On Philippus Sidetes and his 
of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 210-  ~owritings cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, 
215, oth ed., London 1903. Pairology, p. 377. 


21Ep. ad Monach. Aegypti, I 


MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD 9 


the same time most learned opponent of St. Cyril, to the 
effect that “ The first step towards innovation was the 
assertion that the holy Virgin, who, by the assumption 
of flesh from herself, gave birth to the Word of God, 
must not be called mother of God (@coréxos), but only 
mother of Christ (xpicrotéxos), whereas the most an- 
cient heralds of the orthodox faith taught the faithful 
to name and believe the Mother of the Lord Geordxos, 
according to the Apostolic tradition.” ?° 

John, Patriarch of Antioch, who sided with Nestorius 
at the Council of Ephesus and did not make peace 
with St. Cyril till 433, observes: “No ecclesiastical 
teacher has put aside this title [| Ocordxos] ; those who have 
used it are many and eminent, and those who have not 
used it have not attacked those who used it.” *° 

This statement can be easily substantiated from the 
writings of St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. 
Ignatius of Antioch, and*others of the early Fathers. 
Thus St. Athanasius (+ 373) says: ‘‘ We confess that 
the Son of God became man by the assumption of 
flesh from the virgin mother of God.’ ?? St. Gregory 
Nazianzen declares: “ Let him who will not accept 
Mary as the mother of God be excluded from God.” ?8 

The word Ocoroxos must have readily suggested itself 
to the later Fathers when they noted such expressions as 
this in the Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Ephesians: 
“Our God Jesus Christ was borne (éxvodop76)) by Mary 
in her maternal womb.” 7° | 

It is not necessary for our present purpose to cite the 


25 Theodoretus, “ Compendium of Misne (Psi Gi ee Ly bass, 
Heretical Fables” (Aipetuxyjs Kako- (Cfr. Newman, 1. ¢., p. 211.) 


uvdias émcroun), IV, 12. We use 27ék mapbévov THs GeoTdKou. 
Newman’s translation (Athanasius, Orat. contra Arianos, IV, n. 32. 
II, 210). 28 Epist. tor ad Cledon., G I. 


26 Ep. ad Rete. Jf Sian in 29 Epist. ad Ephes., 8. 


10 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


Fathers who wrote after the Ecumenical Council of 
Ephesus. The teaching of the Greek Fathers was sifted 
with Scholastic thoroughness by St. John of Damascus 
in the third part of his famous “ Fountain of Wisdom.” 20 


3. T'HEOLoGicaL Discusston.—For a deeper 
understanding of the dogma let us consider in 
what motherhood essentially consists, and how 
Christ’s eternal yéos from the Father is related 
to His temporal birth from the Virgin Mary. 

a) Nestorius’ chief objection grew out of a 
radically false idea of motherhood. He con- 
tended that Mary could not have been the mother 
of God because this would necessarily entail the 
pagan fallacy that God begot a divine son from 
a human mother, or that a human mother en- 
dowed her son with a divine nature. This in- 
ference is based on a misconception of the Hy- 
postatic Union and of the nature of generation. 
To become truly the mother of God it was not 
necessary for Mary to communicate to her Son 
a divine nature. All that was required was 
that the Son whom she conceived and brought 
forth, was the Divine Person of the Logos. 
Every mother, when she gives birth to a child, 
brings forth a person, not merely the body of a 
person. In the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary 
this person was the Son of God. Hence, though 


80De Fide Orthodoxa, III, 2 “Alter des Titels @eordéxos,” in 
and 12, Cfr. Petavius, De JIn- the Katholik, of Mayence, 1903, I, 
carnatione, V, 153 V. Schweitzer, pp. 97 sqq. 


MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD II 


Mary did not bring forth the Godhead as such, but © 
merely a Divine Person, she is truly the Mother 
of God. The fact that she conceived and gave 
birth to the body but not to the spiritual soul 
of her son in no way derogates from her mother- 
hood. “No one will say of Elizabeth,” observes 
St. Cyril to Nestorius, “that she is the mother of 
St. John’s flesh, but not of his soul; for she gave 
birth to the person of the Baptist, 2. e., a human 
being composed of body and soul.” *? 


Mary not only gave birth to the Divine Logos, she 
also conceived Him. If it could be shown that she con- 
ceived a mere man, even though this man was subse- 
quently, before his birth, transformed into a Godman, 
Nestorius would have been justified in denying her the 
title of Geordxos, for in that hypothesis she would indeed 
have been a mere dvOpwrordxos, since motherhood is 
founded on the act of conception. It was with a view 
to safeguard the dogma of the Hypostatic Union that the 
Church dogmatically defined the temporal coincidence of 
Christ’s conception with the Hypostatic Union.*? 

The conception of Christ includes three simultaneous 
events: (1) the formation of His human body from 
the maternal ovum; (2) the creation and infusion into 
that body of a spiritual soul; and (3) the Hypostatic 
Union of body and soul, per modum unius, with the 
Divine Person of the Logos. When Mary said: “ Be- 
hold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me accord- 


31 Epist. ad Monach. 
32 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 166 sqq. 


2 


12 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


ing to thy word,” ** the mystery of the Incarnation was 
consummated. | 

From the fact that these three events occurred simul- 
taneously, the medieval Scholastics concluded that our 
Lord’s body was informed by the spiritual soul from the 
first moment of its existence, and that it was at once 
complete and perfectly organized.** The last-mentioned 
of these conclusions was based on the false Aristotelian 
theory that the human embryo is at first inanimate and be- 
comes quickened by the spiritual soul only after it has 
reached a certain stage of physiological development,— a 
process which in the male was believed to require forty, in 
the female, sixty days from the*instant of conception. 
As this principle was manifestly inapplicable to Christ, 
the Scholastics had recourse to a miracle and simply de- 
nied the existence of successive stages in the embryolog- 
ical evolution of the Godman. 

It is more in conformity with modern science to 
assume that the spiritual soul informs the human embryo 
from the moment of conception and gradually builds up 
the body and its organs, until the child becomes normally 
capable of living outside the uterus. Applying this 
theory to Christ, we hold that Christ’s spiritual soul was 
infused into the inchoate embryo at the moment of 
His conception. This is but another way of saying 
that the sacred humanity of our Divine Lord was sub- 
ject to the ordinary laws of human development, and that 
He became like unto us in all things except sin.°° 

The objection that a being composed of a spiritual 
soul and an incomplete body would not be a true man, 

33 Luke I, 38. 


34 Cfr. Suarez, De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 11, sect. 2. 
35 Heb. IV, 15. 


MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD 13 


may be dismissed with the remark that such a being falls 
squarely under the philosophical definition of animal 
rationale. 

If we except Christ from the general law of nature 
and postulate unnecessary miracles, we divest the mother- 
hood of the Blessed Virgin of its true meaning and teach 
a refined Docetism. For the gradual development of a 
child under the influence of the plastic powers of nature 
constitutes one of the essential notes of maternity. 


b) As there are two natures in Christ, a dis- 
tinction must be made between His eternal gen- 
eration from the Father and His temporal birth 
from the Virgin Mother. This basic dogma of 
Christology °° necessarily entails a twofold son- 
ship. By His eternal yes from the Father, 
Jesus is the true Son of God; by His temporal 
birth from the Virgin He is the true Son of 
Mary. Being one undivided person, the Son of 
God is therefore absolutely identical with the child 
of the Virgin, and Mary is consequently in very 
truth the mother of God. It follows that the 
dogma of Christ’s twofold sonship does not in- 
volve the Nestorian and Adoptionist implication 
that there are two Sons of God. 

Theologians have raised the question whether the rela- 
tion between Christ’s Divine Sonship and the motherhood 
of Mary is real or merely logical.?" 


86 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 35, 
pp. 61 sqq. art. 5; Suarez, De Myst. Vitae 
87 On this subtle: problem cfr. St. Christi, disp. 12, sect. 2. 


14 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


Christ’s relation as a man to His human mother is 
no doubt as real as Mary’s relation to her Divine Son. 
Christ’s relation as Son of God or Logos to His human 
mother, on the other hand, is purely logical, because, as 
a self-existing and absolutely independent Being, God 
cannot stand in any real relation toa creature. Hence St. 
Thomas teaches: “From the temporal birth there arises 
no real, but only a logical sonship, though Christ is really 
the Son of the Virgin. God is really the Lord of His 
creatures, despite the fact that His dominion over them is 
no real relation. He is called Lord in a real sense, be- 
cause of the real power which He exercises. Similarly 
Christ is in a real sense the Son of the Virgin, because of 
His real birth from her.” 38 


88'Ouodlib., | IX; * art..c4,) jadi 
“Ex nativitate temporali non in- 


vealis; dicitur enim realiter Domi- 
nus propter realem potestatem, et 


nascitur filiatio realis, sed rationis 
tantum, quamvis Christus realiter 
sit filius virginis; sicut Deus reali- 
ter est Dominus creaturae, quam- 
vis in eo dominium non sit relatio 


sic dicitur Christus realiter filius 
virginis propter realem nativitatem.” 
Cfr. G. B. Tepe, Institutiones The- 
ologicae, Vol. III, pp. 683 sqq., Paris 
1896, § 


CHAPTER II 


MARY'S DIGNITY AS MOTHER OF GOD AND THE 
GRACES ATTACHED TO HER DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


Like the Hypostatic Union of the two Natures in 
Christ, the Divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin 
Mary may be regarded from a twofold point of view: 
(1) ontologically, 7. e., in its objective dignity (dignitas 
maternitatis divinae in se); and (2) ethically, in its 
causal connexion with the prerogatives proper to this 
exalted office (plenitudo gratiae correspondens digni- 
tati). Christology shows how the Hypostatic Union 
immediately and substantially sanctified the manhood of 
our Lord in direct proportion to His infinite dignity as 
Godman.t' In a similar though not precisely the same 
manner Mary’s objective dignity as mother of God con- 
stitutes both the intrinsic principle and the extrinsic 
standard of her supernatural purity and holiness. The 
one postulates the other as a cause its effect. 


1Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 224 sqq. 


5 


SECTION 1 


THE OBJECTIVE DIGNITY OF MARY'S DIVINE 
MOTHERHOOD 


Scheeben? lucidly demonstrates the unique 
dignity of Mary’s Divine Motherhood by point- 
ing out, (1) that it confers upon her a rank vastly 
superior to that of any other creature; (2) that 
it constitutes her the very centre of the hierarchy 
of rational creatures, and (3) that it makes her 
an intermediary between God and the universe. 

1. THE TRANSCENDENT RANK OF Mary As 
MorTHer oF Gop.—The Blessed Virgin Mary, as 
Mother of God, ranks high above all other crea- 
tures; in fact she is in a category all her own, in- 
asmuch as she embodies the most perfect type of 
created personality, just as the manhood of our 
Lord Jesus Christ represents the most perfect 
type of human nature. 

a) As mother of the Divine Logos, Mary 
stands in a unique relation to the Second Per- 
son of the Trinity. The Logos is the true Son 
both of His Heavenly Father and of His earthly 
mother. This double consubstantiality (oHo0vcie) , 


2 Dogmatik, Vol. III, § 277. 
16 


DIGNITY OF DIVINE MOTHERHOOD © 17 


based upon His twofold birth, is strongly em-_ 
phasized in the ancient creeds and conciliar defini- 
tions. 


The so-called Athanasian Creed* teaches: “ For the 
right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man: God, of 
the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds ; 
and man, of the substance of His mother, born into the 
world.”* And the Fifth Ecumenical Council (A. D. 
553) defines: “If any one do not confess that 
the Word of God has two births, the one before the 
worlds from the Father, out of time and incorporeally, 
and the other ... from the holy and glorious Deipara 
and ever Virgin Mary, ... let him be anathema.” ® 

The dignity of Mary’s maternal relation to the Second 
Person of the Trinity cannot be adequately expressed in 
human terms. The Fathers try to explain it by applying 
to her certain passages of the Psalms,® wherein the beau- 
ties of the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple of Solomon, 
and the great City of Zion are described in exalted terms. 
In fact they regard the Ark of Noé, the Ark of the Cove- 
nant, the Golden Bowl, etc., as types of the Blessed 
Virgin.* 


8 This creed, known also from its natus.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
first word as the Symbolum Qui- 40.) 
cunque, is an admirable résumé 5“ St quis non confitetur, Det 
of the doctrine of St. Athanasius, Verbit duas esse nativitates (ras 


but is not his work. It is of 
Western origin, and was written in 
Spain, against Priscillianism. Cfr. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 
Dane 
4“ Est ergo fides recta, ut creda- 
mus et confiteamur, quia D. N. 
Tesus Christus Dei Filius Deus et 
homo est: Deus est ex substantia 
Patris ante saecula geniius, et homo 
est ex substantia matris in saeculo 


d0o yevyjoes), unam quidem ante 
saecula ex Patre sine tempore in- 
corporaliter, alteram vero. ... de 
sancta gloriosa Dei genitrice (@eo- 
to6kov) et semper virgine Maria, 
... talis anathema sit.” (Denzin- 
ger-Bannwart, n. 214.) ~ 

Gish, No DI, We Os enoles Ven SeISC es 
LXXXV1I,. 1 saa; ete. 

7 On these types cfr. the first of 
St. John Damascene’s Homilies on 


18 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


b) Mary’s Divine Motherhood entails an alto- 
gether unique relation to the First Person of 
the Trinity. She can claim one and the same 
,son with God the Father, not, of course in the 
heathen sense, as god and goddess, but in the 
Christian sense, as the Divine Father and a hu- 
man mother. This miraculous relationship on 
the part of Mary may be technically described as 
her daughterhood. It forms the theological 
counterpart of her motherhood and is a preroga- 
tive peculiar to Our Lady, resulting in a special 
kind of adoption. God the Father cannot but look 
with unalloyed pleasure upon the mother of His 
Divine Son. She is His adopted daughter (flia 
adoptiva), who excels all His other adopted chil- 
dren by right of primogeniture. 

On this prerogative are based Mary’s sublime titles 
of “Lady” (Domina, xvpia) and “Queen” (regina 
Bacitea). St. John of Damascus observes that ‘ in be- 
coming the mother of the Creator she became the mis- 
tress of all His creatures.” * To emphasize this aspect 
of her dignity some Fathers and medieval theologians 
apply to Mary, though not of course in a strict sense, cer- 
tain epithets ascribed to the sapientia ingenita by the Sapi- 
ential Books of the Old Testament. The Church has in- 
corporated a number of these into her liturgy.® 


c) Mary’s relationship extends also to the 


the “Dormitio” (eis thy Kolun- Jesus in Holy Scripture, pp. 12 
ow) of the Blessed Virgin (Migne, sqq. New York 10913. 

P... G., XCVI,. 609 “saq.).: On-the 8 De Fide Orthod., IV, 14. 
rationale of Marian typology see 9For further particulars see 
Schaefer-Brossart, The Mother of Schaefer-Brossart, J. c., pp. 102 Sqq., 


DIGNITY OF DIVINE MOTHERHOOD © 19 


Holy Ghost, because He is the product of the 
joint spiration of the Father and the Son.%° In 
this capacity she has been aptly compared to a 
spouse,—an analogy adumbrated by the Apostles’ 
Creed when it says that Christ ‘was conceived 
by the Holy Ghost.” This appropriation ex- 
cludes the cooperation of a human male and rep- 
resents the fruit of Mary’s womb as a supernatu- 
ral product." 

Catholic theologians and the Church in her liturgy illus- 
trate this sublime relation between the Blessed Virgin and 
the Holy Ghost by quotations from the Canticle of Can- 


ticles. The “ Spouse ” is sometimes explained to be Mary, 
sometimes the Church, and sometimes the human soul.” 


Thus we have seen that Mary is the mother of 
the Divine Logos, the daughter of God the 
Father, and the spouse of the Holy Ghost. What 
mortal mind can form an adequate conception of 
this threefold dignity? Need we wonder that 
some ecclesiastical writers exalt it as ineffable 
and compare it with the inscrutability of the Al- 
mighty Himself? Thus Bishop Basil of Seleucia 
(d. about 459) says in one of his sermons: “As 

It is impossible to conceive and utter God, so the 
stupendous mystery of the mother of God tran- 
scends every intellect and tongue.’’” 


10 Cfr, Pohle-Preuss, The Divine § 18, Munster 1876; H. -Zschokke, 
Trinity, 2nd ed., pp. 168 sqq., St. Die biblischen Frauen im Alten 
Louis 1915. } Testamente, § 41, Wien 1882. 

11 Semen divinum. 13 The passage occurs in the 

12 Cfr. B. Schafer, Das Hohelied,  thirty-third of the Sermons ()\éyos) 


20 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


This sublime dignity is not a quality, but a rela- 
tion, and as such may be termed infinite; for infini- 
tude, applied to dignity, does not involve infinity of 
person. Albertus Magnus teaches: “The Son en- 
dows with infinity the goodness of His mother; if the 
fruit is infinitely good, the tree too must in a sense possess 
some infinite goodness.”** And his great pupil St. 
Thomas Aquinas says: “ From the fact that she is the 
Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin has a certain infinite 
dignity, derived from the infinite Good who is God, and 
on this account there cannot be anything better, just as 
there cannot be anything better than God.” * 

Our Lady’s infinite dignity must not, however, be 
conceived as separable from her character as God’s 
favorite daughter with its claim to a corresponding meas~- 
ure of grace and glory. Without this character the dig- 
nity of divine motherhood would remain in a sense im- 
perfect. It was for this reason no doubt that our Divine 
Lord answered the woman who exclaimed: “ Blessed is 
the womb that bore thee,” by saying: “ Yea, rather, 
blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep 


ite 

2. Mary’s RELATION TO Her FELLOW-CREA- 
TURES.—Lhe Blessed Virgin Mary is the most 
eminent member of the human family. With the 


ascribed to Basil. For a sketch of just as there can be nothing better 


his life see Bardenhewer-Shahan, 
Patrology, pp. 531 sq. 

14“ Filius infinitat matris bonita- 
tem, infinita bonitas in fructu infi 
nitam quandam adhuc ostendit in 
arbore bonitatem.”’ (Mariale, qu. 
197.) 

15 That is to say, there can be 
no greater motherhood than Mary’s, 


than God. Summa Theol., 1a, qu. 
25, art. 6, ad 4: “ Beata Virgo ex 
hoc, quod est mater Dei, habet 
quandam dignitatem infinitam ex 
bono infinito, quod est Deus, et ex 
hac parte non potest aliquid melius 
fieri, sicué non potest aliquid melius 
esse Deo.” 
16 Luke X°, 27 sq. 


DIGNITY OF DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 21 


sole exception of her Divine Son, (“the first-born — 
of every creature,’ with whom, of course, she 
cannot be compared either from this or any 
other point of view), she is undoubtedly the love- 
liest flower that ever bloomed on the tree of 
humanity, and we are perfectly justified in ad- 
dressing her as “Mystic Rose’ and “Spiritual 
Lily.’ We show a still profounder conception 
of her dignity and mission when we venerate 
her as the human organ specially chosen by the 
Holy Ghost for the miracle of the Incarnation, 
whereby she became a most precious “Spiritual 
Vessel,” for, as we pray in the Ave Maria: 
“Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” 


How are we to define Mary’s relationship to her fellow- 
creatures ? 

She is not, of course, the “head” of the human race. 
That dignity belongs solely to Jesus Christ, the “ second 
Adam,” who restored our lost innocence. Mary gave 
birth to her own spiritual and supernatural head in the 
person of Christ. Her unique position in the mystic 
body of the Church has been likened to that of the 
“neck,” 17 but she is perhaps more appropriately com- 
pared to the heart, which of all the bodily organs most 
perfectly reflects the energy of the head and most effect- 
ively sustains its vital functions.16 Thus Mary’s Divine 
Motherhood takes on the character and functions of a 
spiritual motherhood in relation to all men, especially 
those who are living members of the body of Christ. 


17 “‘ Collum corporis mystici.” 
18 Cfr. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. III, p. 512. 


22 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


As St. Augustine beautifully says: “ [She is] spiritually 
the mother not indeed of our Head, 7. e., the Saviour 
Himself, from whom rather she is spiritually born .. . but 
[the spiritual mother] of His members, 7. e., ourselves, be- 
cause she cooperated in love towards the birth of faith- 
ful [Christians] in the Church who are the members of 
that Head; bodily she is truly the mother of that Head.” 
Some of the Fathers describe Mary’s mystic relation to 
the human race by referring to her as a root (radix) or 
vine (vitis),—two analogies which, of course, in an 
infinitely higher sense apply to our Lord Himself. 


3. Mary As AN INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN GoD 
AND THE Wortp.—Like her Divine Son, though 
not in the same sense, Mary is an intermediary 
between God and His creatures. Christ’s medi- 
atorship is based on the Hypostatic Union of the 
two Natures in one Person; that of the Blessed 
Virgin depends entirely on her Divine Mother- 
hood. Hers is therefore a participated and secon- 
dary mediatorship (mediatio participata s. secun- 
daria), which derives its essence and effectiveness 
solely from the grace of Christ; furthermore, it is 
not an end in itself, but merely a means to an end. 


Many Fathers and theologians compare the mediator- 
ship of Mary to the ladder which Jacob beheld in his 
dream, “standing upon the earth, and the top thereof 


19 “ Et mater quidem spiritu non operata est caritate ut fideles in 


Capitis nostri, quod est ipse Salva- ecclesia mnascerentur, quae illius 
tor, ex quo magis illa spiritaliter Capitis membra sunt: corpore vero 
nata est,...sed plane membro-  ipsius Capitis mater.” (De Virg., 


rum eius, quod nos sumus, quia co- cc 6.) 


DIGNITY OF DIVINE MOTHERHOOD = 23 


touching heaven.” 2° She is the ladder by which the Son ~ 
of God descended from, and by which men ascend to 
heaven.2?. Other favorite Patristic metaphors are a 
ring (annulus) and a bridge (pons) restoring the lost 
connection of mankind with God. St. Proclus (+ 466) 
combined all these similes in an enthusiastic eulogy. 
“Mary, I say, maiden and mother, virgin and heaven, 
the singular bridge between God and men, the astonishing 
weaver’s beam of humanity, on which in an ineffable 
manner was woven the garment of that [Hypostatic] 
Union, the Holy Ghost Himself being the weaver, the 
connecting thread the power from above, the wool that 
ancient fleece of Adam, the woof the immaculate flesh 
taken from the Virgin, the shuttle the immeasurable 
grace of the bearer, the artist the Logos, entering through 
her hearing.” *° 

The objection that these prerogatives are not all ex- 
pressly enumerated in Holy Scripture is met partly by ref- 
erence to certain Old Testament texts and types, and partly 
by the statement that the dignity of the Blessed Virgin 
Mary is sufficiently indicated in the pregnant passage: 


“From her was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.” *° 
20 Gen. XXVIII, 12 sq. Die Marienverehrung in den ersten 
21 Cfr. Zschokke, Die biblischen Jahrhunderten, 2nd ed., pp. 213 sd4q., 

Frauen, p. 448. Stuttgart 1886. 

22 Orat. de Laud. S. Mariae, 1. 23, .. ex qua natus est Iesus, 


(Migne, P. G., LXV, 679 saa.) qui vocatur Christus.’ (Matth. 
For further details consult Lehner, I, 16). 


SECTION #2 


MARY’S FULNESS OF GRACE 


Ripalda* and Scheeben? refer to Mary’s Divine 
Motherhood as her immediate forma sanctificans. This 
view is based on a misapplied analogy with the Hyposta- 
tic Union and therefore untenable. But there can be no 
doubt that the dignity of Divine Motherhood imperatively 
postulates for its bearer the highest possible measure 
of interior grace and_ sanctification. For, though 
motherhood is merely a grace of vocation (gratia gratis 
data), its inherent dignity requires a corresponding 
worthiness on the part of the bearer. The mother of 
God could not have been a sinful woman. This reason- 
ing finds strong support in Holy Scripture and Tradition. 


I. [THE Docmatic ArGUMENT.—Both Holy 
Scripture and Tradition teach that the Mother of 
Jesus was “full of grace.” 

a) The dogma of our Lady’s “plenitudo gra- 
tiae’ 1s formally contained in the angelic saluta- 
tion: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with 
thee.” * In the original Greek this text is even 
more graphic: “xaipe, KexXapitopevy, 6 Kupios’ pera 

99 


gov,” The emphasis is on the word kexaputopém, 


1 De Ente Supernaturali, disp. 70. 8Luke I; 28: °“ Ave. gratia 
2Dogmatik, Vol. III, § 276. plena: Dominus tecum.” 


24 


MARY’S FULNESS OF GRACE 25 


which is evidently intended to point out a predom- 
inant trait of the Virgin. That the salutation 
was quite extraordinary appears from the fact 
that Mary was “troubled” at the Angel’s words 
and “thought with herself what manner of salu- 
tation this should be.” 4 


In its primitive sense yapuréw means J show grace 
or favor. God’s way of showing favor to a rational 
creature is to endow him or her with sanctifying 
srace.""Cir. Eph. I, 6: . “rs Xapitos avrov, év 7) éxapitwoev 
jpas—of his grace, in which he hath graced 
us...” Hence xexapuronémm means a woman full of 
grace,— endowed not merely with the extrinsic graces 
proper to her state of life, but with a full measure 
of sanctifying grace, which precedes the grace of voca- 
tion, strictly so called, by way of preparation and endow- 
ment. Mary was not yet de facto the Mother of God 
when the Angel addressed her as kexapitwpevn, for 
she had not yet given her consent. The phrase: “The 
Lord is with thee,” is not part of the salutation 
proper; it is a statement, couched in ordinary Scrip- 
tural terms, promising her the divine protection for some 
definite task or mission. But as divine motherhood is con- 
ditioned upon intrinsic purity and holiness, and presup- 
poses in its bearer many actual graces, the phrase “ Do- 
minus tecum” in this connection manifestly has the same 
meaning as “ gratia plena.,” Bia 

Following the lead of certain Fathers, we may more- 
over apply to the Blessed Virgin Mary a large number 
of Old Testament texts which find their full application 
in no one else but her. For example, Prov. XXXI, 29: 


4Luke I, 29. 


26 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


“Many daughters have gathered together riches: thou 
hast surpassed them all.” The enthusiastic description 
of the “ Spouse” in the Canticle of Canticles can likewise 
be applied in its plenary sense only to the Mother of God.® 


b) The Fathers delighted in unfolding the log- 
ical implications of the Angelic Salutation and 
in so doing measured the intrinsic graces of Mary 
by the standard of her sublime dignity as Mother 
of God. 


St. Epiphanius says that she was “full of grace in 
every respect.” ® St. Athanasius, that she is called “ full 
of grace, because, being filled with the Holy Ghost, she 
overflowed with all graces, and was overshadowed by the 
power of the Most High.” * Inan ancient homily wrongly 
ascribed to St. Gregory the Wonder-worker we read: 
“The most holy Virgin is truly the precious ark which 
received the whole treasure of sanctity.” § 

Other Patristic texts are even more convincing. We 
refer the student especially to those which, in connexion 
with Ps. XLIV, 12,° declare that Mary attracted the 
Son of the Heavenly King by her extraordinary beauty 
and holiness. It will suffice to quote St. Augustine, who 
says: “An abundance of grace was conferred on her, 
who merited to conceive and bear Him of whom we 
know that He was without sin.” 1° 

Our Lady’s personal merit must not, however, be 


5 Cfr. Schaefer-Brossart, The 9 Ps, XLV, (12: 05" The | King 


Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture, 


PP. 133 saqq.; Otto Bardenhewer, 
Maria V erkiindigung, Freiburg 
1905. 


6 Haer., 58, n. 24. 
7 Ep. ad Epictet. 
8 Migne, .P. G.,.X, 1150. 


shall greatly desire thy beauty.” 

10 De Natura et Gratia, c. 36: 
“Plus gratiae ei collatum est, quia 
eum concipere meruit et parere, 
quem scimus nullum habuisse pec- 
catum.” 


MARY’S FULNESS OF GRACE 27 


conceived as a meritum de condigno but merely de con- 
gruo. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, ‘“ The 
Blessed Virgin is said to have merited the privilege of 
bearing the Lord of all, not because it was through her 
merits that He became incarnate, but because, by the 
grace bestowed upon her she merited that measure of 
purity and holiness which fitted her to be the mother of 
God,” 


c) The theological argument for our dogma is 
based partly on the self-evident truth that the 
grace bestowed upon any person is commensurate 
with his or her dignity or office, and partly on the 
consideration that the measure of interior graces 
with which our Lady was dowered must have 
corresponded to her triple relationship to the three 
Persons of the Divine Trinity.” 


It was a duty of honor, so to speak, for the Most Holy 
Trinity to endow the Deipara with a full, nay with 
a superabundant measure of interior grace. “The 
more closely one approaches a principle of any kind,” 
says St. Thomas, “the more one participates in the 
effect flowing from that principle. . . . Now Christ is the 
principle of grace; as God He is its author, as man its 
instrument... . But the Blessed Virgin Mary was 
nearest to Christ in His humanity, because He assumed 
His human nature from her. Consequently, she must 
have received from Him a greater fulness of grace than 
any one else.” ** This truth is emphasized in the dog- 


11 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. Dares illum puritatis et sanctitatis gradum, 
11, ad 3: “Beata virgo dicitur ut congrue posset esse mater Dei.’’ 
meruisse portare Dominum omnium, 12 V. supra, Section 1. 
non quia meruit ipsum incarnari, 13 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. amecart, 


sed quia meruit ex gratia sibi data 5: “Quanto aliquid magis appro- 


3 


28 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


matic Bull “Jneffabilis Deus” of Pope Pius IX (Dec. 
8th, 1854) +4 


2. THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE DocMa.— 
We now proceed to consider the dogma from the 
specifically theological standpoint by studying (a) 
its scope and (b) its limitations. 

a) Grace, generally speaking, culminates in. 
sanctifying grace. Hence the fulness of grace 
enjoyed by the Blessed Virgin Mary must be con- 
ceived as a superabundance of interior holiness. 


How is her sanctity to be measured in the concrete? In 
trying to estimate it at its proper worth, let us compare 
the Mother of God, first to her Divine Son, and secondly 
to the Angels and Saints. 

Her sanctity was inferior to the created sanctity of 
Jesus in proportion as divine motherhood falls short of 
the prerogative of the Hypostatic Union. In comparing 
her sanctity to that of the Angels and Saints, we shall 
find it difficult to establish a definite line of demarcation. 
No doubt the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, while vastly 
inferior to the created sanctity of Christ, surpasses that 
of the most glorious seraph and the greatest Saints. 

The epithet “ full of grace” has a different meaning as 


pinquat principio in aliquo genere, prae caeteris maiorem debut a 
tanto magis participat effectum 1l- Christo gratiae plenitudinem  ob- 
lius principii. ... Christus autem  tinere.” 

est principium gratiae, secundum 14 An almost complete transla- 


divinitatem quidem auctoritative, se- 
cundum humanitatem vero instru- 
mentaliter. ... Beata autem virgo 


Maria propinquissima Christo futt- 


secundum humanitatem, quia ex ea 
accepit humanam naturam. Et ideo 


tion of this Bull will be found in 
the Marquess of Bute’s English 
edition of the Roman Breviary, 
Office for the Octave of the Im- 
maculate Conception. See also 
The Little Book of the Immac. Con- 
ception, Dublin 1913. 


MARY’S FULNESS OF GRACE 29 


applied by Sacred Scripture (1) to our Lord Himself,5 
(2) to St. Stephen,** (3) to the Apostles,” and (4) to 
our Blessed Lady. Though infinitely below the God- 
man, yet as Mother of God, Mary ranks high above her 
fellow creatures. Analogously, her plenitudo gratiae is 
intermediate between the fulness of grace peculiar to 
Christ and that of the holy Angels and Saints, far out- 
ranking the latter. Theologians are wont to describe it 
as “plenitudo summae abundantiae;’ or “ plenitudo 
redundantiae,’ but they deny that it is actually in- 
finite, since not even the created sanctity of our Lord Him- 
self can be conceived as gratia actu infinita® To obtain 
some idea of the high degree of sanctifying grace 
peculiar to our Lady, we may assume with Suarez that 
it transcends by far the combined sanctity of all the 
Angels and Saints.?° 

What is true of sanctifying grace, must, mutatis mu- 
tandis, also be true of its supernatural effects, such as the 
theological virtues, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the 
infused moral virtues, with the sole exception of contri- 
tion, which our Blessed Mother cannot have exercised 
because she was sinless. 


b) The Schoolmen reduced the truths we have 
just set forth to a technical axiom, to wit: “Alii 
ad mensuram gratiam acceperunt, Maria autem 
gratiae plenitudinem.” Being liable to exagger- 


19 Suarez, De Myst. Vitae Christi, 
disp. 18, sect. 4, n. 8: “St mente 
concipiamus ex multitudine gratia- 


a5 Cire obny: Tin was 
xdpiros Kal addnOelas. 
16 Acts VI, 8: Srédavos 6§é 


mAnpNS 


wANPNS Xapcros. 

17 Cfr, Acts II, 4: ésdhodnoar 
mavres mvevmaTos ayiov. 

18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
Pp. 230 sqq. 


rum sanctorum (et angelorum) om- 
nium unam intentissimam gratiam 
consurgere, non adaequaret inten- 
sionem gratiae Virginis.’ 


30 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


ation, however, this axiom must be carefully cir- 
cumscribed. 

a) First, the plenitudo gratiarum does not 
mean that all possible supernatural prerogatives 
are superadded to sanctifying grace and its con- 
comitant privileges. 


Those who are guilty of this exaggeration (we are 
sorry to see Terrien among their number) are com- 
pelled to attribute to Mary all the prerogatives en- 
joyed by our First Parents in Paradise, viz.: bodily im- 
mortality, impassibility, and an infused knowledge of all 
natural truths. This theory is refuted by the tribulations 
which our Blessed Lady suffered and by the fact that she 
died a natural death. 

A seventeenth-century divine, Christopher Vega, as- 
serted that the soul of our Lady enjoyed the beatific 
vision of God throughout life.2° If this were true, 
the Blessed Virgin could not have acquired any 
earthly merits by faith, and Elizabeth would have been 
mistaken when she said to her: “Blessed art thou 
that hast believed.” 2. At most we may adopt the pious, 
though unproved and unprovable opinion of Suarez,” 
that Mary had a fleeting vision of the Blessed Trinity 
at the moment when she conceived, and again when she 
gave birth to her Divine Son. 

St. Alphonsus de’ Liguori held, and his opinion has 
found a recent defender in Fr. Terrien, that the Blessed 
Virgin enjoyed full consciousness and the use of reason 
from the moment of her conception. This assump- 
tion (which, by the way, dates back no farther than the 


20 Theologia Mariana, Lugduni 22 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 
1653. 19, sect, 4, Nn. 2. 
21 Luke I, 45. 


MARY’S FULNESS OF GRACE 31 


fourteenth century), is utterly untenable. Not even the 
shred of an argument can be produced in its favor. St. 
Thomas expressly declares that Mary did not have the 
use of free-will while in her mother’s womb but that 
this was the unique privilege of Christ.?° 

Equally untenable is the more recent assertion of Jean- 
jacquot ** that the Blessed Virgin during her earthly life 
knew personally—as she now knows in Heaven —all 
those pious souls who in course of time would have 
recourse to her as the “ Help of Christians.” 

It is, however, perfectly consonant with her dignity as 
Deipara to hold that Mary possessed a deep and exten- 
sive supernatural knowledge in matters of faith,— so 
wide and profound in fact, that she deserves to be called 
“Seat of Wisdom.” Note, however, that, as applied to 
her in the liturgy, this epithet does not necessarily mean 
anything more than that our Lady is the bearer and 
mother of the increate Wisdom of the Logos, and that, 
consequently, we are not justified, on the strength of 
mere a-priori deductions, in ascribing to Mary in the way- 
faring state an altogether singular knowledge of the di- 
vine mysteries and an infused familiarity with the wisdom 
of Sacred Scripture. The question she addressed to the 
Archangel Gabriel proves that she was unaware of 
the mystery of the Incarnation; for, as “the handmaid 
of the Lord” she makes an humble profession of faith. 
That her earthly life was one of faith, is evidenced also 
by the prophecy of Simeon? and by the reply she got 
from her twelve-year-old Son in the Temple, and which 


23 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 27, art. defended by Gerson and Muratori. 


3: “Non statim habuit usum li- 24 Simples Explications sur la Co 
beri arbitrit adhuc in ventre matris  opération de la S. Viérge a VOeuvre 
existens; hoc enim est speciale pri- de la Rédemption, Paris 1875. 


vilegium Christi.” This view was 25 Luke II, 29 saq. 


2 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


she believingly treasured in her heart.2* To assume 
that she was versed in the natural sciences or that her 
“wisdom” equalled the “infused knowledge” of the 
Angels, is unwarranted. Unlike her Divine Son, the 
humble “handmaid of the Lord” was not skilled in 
profane knowledge, nor did her exalted mission necessi- 
tate any intellectual attainments beyond those which 
strictly belong to the supernatural order. 

While Mary, especially after she had “ conceived of the 
Holy Ghost,” undoubtedly enjoyed to an exalted degree 
the gift of contemplation, Scheeben exaggerates when he 
says that she lived in a continuous ecstasy uninterrupted 
even by sleep.*’ It is difficult to see the object of such 
mystical extravagances. 

Did the plenitudo gratiae with which our Lady was en- 
dowed comprise such free and special graces as the power 
conferred by the Sacrament of Holy Orders? No; our 
Lord gave this and similar powers (spiritual jurisdiction, 
etc.), to St. Peter and the other Apostles, not to His 
mother. The same limitation applies to all other func- 
tions proper to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. However, 
there is nothing to prevent us from assuming that after 
the descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost day the 
Blessed Virgin Mary possessed the threefold gift of 
prophecy, tongues, and miracles in a measure corres- 
ponding to her eminent position in the primitive Church.?8 

26 Luke II, 49 sqq. 


27 Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. III, 
§278. 


bat miracula facere. Propter quod 
etiam de Ioanne Baptista dicitur 
quod ‘signum fecit nullum’ (lo. 


28 St. Thomas denies that she pos- 
sessed the gift of working miracles: 
““Miraculorum autem usus ei non 
competebat, dum viveret, quia tunc 
temporis confirmanda erat doctrina 
Christi miraculis. Et ideo soli 
Christo et eius discipulis, qui erant 
baiuli doctrinae Christi, convenie- 


X, 41), ut scil. omnes Christo in- 
tenderent. Usum autem prophetiae 
habuit [B. Virgo], ut patet in Can- 
tico quod fecit: ‘ Magnificat anima 
mea Dominum,’ etc. (Luc. I, 47).” 
(Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 27, art. 5, 
ad 3.) 


MARY’S FULNESS OF GRACE 33 


B) The “fulness of grace’ enjoyed by our. 
Blessed Mother was not complete and perfect at. 
the outset, but developed gradually, reaching its 
climax at the moment of her death. 


Unlike her Divine Son,?? Mary advanced in grace and 
virtue. Catholic theologians distinguish three stages in 
her spiritual development. The first of these comprises 
her infancy up to the time when she conceived our Divine 
Lord. The second coincides with the period from the 
conception of Christ to her death. The third is the term 
of her everlasting beatitude in Heaven.*® It should be 
noted, however, that St. Thomas erred in representing the 
perfectio sanctificationis characteristic of the first stage 
as liberatio a culpa originali; it must be defined as 
praeservatio a culpa originali, as we shall demonstrate 
further on. 

Some few theologians hold that Mary attained to per- 
fection of grace at the end of the first stage, 7. e., when 
she conceived her Divine Son. But this theory entails 
an inadmissible corollary, namely, that she received no 
increase of sanctifying grace after the Incarnation, 
neither ex opere operato, as during the descent of the 
Holy Ghost on Pentecost day, nor ex opere operantis, 
e. g. by the merits of her virtuous life. Who would 
admit such an incongruity? The honor of our Lady is 
not enhanced by untrue, unprovable, and questionable 
asseverations, no matter how well-intentioned the zeal 


29 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, veddebatur idonea ut esset mater 
pp. 236 sqq. Christi, et haec fuit perfectio sanc- 
30 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa The- tificationis. Secunda autem  per- 
OLOGICEs Bay a Aa 2 7) ates 5s. ads 25 fectio gratiae fuit in beata virgine 
“ Et similiter in beata virgine est ex praesentia Filii Dei in eius utero 
triplex perfectio gratiae: prima qui- incarnati. Tertia autem est per- 


dem quasi dispositiva, per quam  fectio finis, quam habet in gloria.” 


34 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


of those who put them forth. She is so very great and 
holy that there is no need of exaggerating the graces 
with which she was endowed. 


3. THE Name “Mary.”’—To derive the dogma 
etymologically from the name “Mary” is a rather 
difficult undertaking, as the root-meaning of the 
word remains doubtful. 


The word “ Mary ” (DD, Aramaic O°, Septuagint 
Mopidu) is genuinely Hebraic. The first woman who 
bore it in Bible history is the sister of Moses. Lauth’s 
attempt to derive the word from the Egyptian has proved 
a failure. The Aramaic etymon signifies “Lady ” (Do- 
mina, from 12, Lord). According to the various He- 
brew words that have been assigned as its root, the word 
may have any one of a variety of meanings. First, illu- 
minatrix (dwrifovea from “iN, light-bearer). Then, the 
stubborn, refractory one (from 7%, to be stubborn). 


It is not likely that a father would give his new-born 
daughter either of these fantastic names. As regards 
the other proposed derivations, myrrh (myrrha, pvppa 3 
Heb. 49), which is both ancient and popular, will hardly 
be displaced by Bardenhewer’s *! more recent and rather 
prosaic interpretation of the corpulent one (from N19, 
to fatten).®? Akin to this derivation is an older but 
nobler one, i. ¢., the strong, the tall. The final syllable iam 
is usually treated as the suffix characteristic of Hebrew 
adjectives and abstract nouns, though some interpret it 
substantively and explain Miriam to mean the bitter sea 
(mare amarum, mpi Oddacca, from 10, bitter, and D, 


sea) or a drop of the sea, (stilla maris, from 2, drop, 


81 Cfr. Otto Bardenhewer, Der 32 Corpulency is said to be an 
Name Maria. Freiburg 1895. attribute of beauty in the Orient. 


MARY’S FULNESS OF GRACE 35 


and 6%, sea).** On purely linguistic grounds “ Mary” 
may also be derived from Marjam, i. e., the bitter, or, 
figuratively, the sorrowful one (amara, afilicta). 

Since the etymological derivation of the name is, and 
most likely will always remain doubtful, its typical and 
historic interpretation deserves all the more attention. 
“Mirjam [7 e., the sister of Moses as a type of the 
mother of God] was the Israelite; Mary —as the anti- 
thesis between herself and Eve shows — is the Christian. 
Mirjam was par excellence ‘she who had been healed’ 
[of leprosy] in the Old Testament, an earnest of God’s 
fidelity in keeping His promises; Mary is preéminently 
“she who has been redeemed,’ the token of salvation. 
As a member of the human race, a child of Adam, Mary, 
like the rest of us, had need of being redeemed. Had 
not our Lord in a most unique manner become her 
Redeemer, she too would have been overwhelmed by the 
bitter flood of original sin. ... But as the old Testa- 
ment Mirjam was preéminently the one who had been 
healed, so the New Testament Mary is preéminently the 
one who has been endowed with grace. It is for this 
reason that the Angel reassured her [Luke I, 30]: ‘Fear 
not, Mary, for thou hast found grace (xépw) with 
Croc 14 


READINGS: —*P. Canisius, S. J., De Maria Virgine Incompa- 
rabilt et Det Genitrice, Ingolstadt 1577 (reprinted in Migne, 
Summa Aurea de Laudibus B. V. Mariae, Paris 1866).— G. Ven- 
tura, S. J., La Madre di Dio Madre degli Uomini, 2nd ed., Rome 


838 The popular title ‘ Stella ther information see Knabenbauer, 
maris’’ (star of the sea) is a cor- | Comment. in Matth., Vol. I, pp. 
rupted reading of stilla maris. It 43 sqq., Paris 1892; Bucceroni, 
goes‘back to the time of St. Jerome. Commentarii, 4th ed., pp. 80 sqq.; 

34 Al, Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter Bardenhewer, Der Name Maria. 
in der Hl. Schrift, pp. 142 sqq., Geschichte der Deutung desselben, 
2nd ed., Miinster 1900. English tr. Freiburg 1895; Minocchi, IJ] Nome 
by Bishop Brossart, p. 149. For fur- di Maria, Florence 1897. 


360 MARY’S DIVINE MOTHERHOOD 


1845.— F. Morgott, Die Mariologie des hl. Thomas von Aquin, 
Freiburg 1878.— Chr. Stamm, Mariologia seu Potiores de S. Det- 
para Quaestiones ex SS. Patrum ac Theologorum Mente Pro- 
positae, Paderborn 1881.— A. Kurz, Mariologie oder Lehre der 
katholischen Kirche iiber Maria, Ratisbon 1881—L. M. Worn- 
hart, Maria, die wunderbare Mutter Gottes und der Menschen, 
Innsbruck 1890..—C. H. T. Jamar, Theologia Mariana, Louvain 
1896.— Th. E. Bridgett, C. SS. R., Our Lady’s Dowry, London 
1875.— J. Bucceroni, Commentarit ... de B. V. Maria, 4th ed., 
Rome 1896.—*Aloys Schaefer, Die Gottesmutier in der Hl. 
Schrift, 2nd ed., Minster 1900; English translation by F. Brossart, 
The Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture, New York 1913.—J. 
B. Terrien, S. J., La Mére de Dieu et la Mere des Hommes 
d’apres les Péres et la Théologie, 4 vols., Paris 1900 sqq.—A. M. 
Lépicier, Tractatus de B. Maria Virgine Matre Dei, Rome 1901. 
— Th. Livius, C. SS. R., The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of 
the First Six Centuries, London 1893. E. Neubert, Marie dans 
VEglise Anténicéenne, Paris 1908.— J. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. 
Ill, § 274-282, Freiburg 1882,— Wilhelm-Scannell, 4 Manual of 
Catholic Theology, Vol. Il, pp. 208 sqq., 2nd ed., London 1901. 
—S. J. Hunter, S. J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, 
pp. 545 saq., 2nd ed., London s.a.— J. Gibbons, “ The Position of 
the Blessed Virgin in Catholic Theology” in the Am. Cath. 
Quarterly Review, Vol. II, No. 12.— J. H. Stewart, The Greater 
Eve, London 1912.— A. J. Maas, S. J., art. “Virgin Mary” in the 
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV.—G. M. Galfano, La Vergine 
delle Vergine, Palermo 1882.— Article “Marie” in the Diction- 
naire Apologétique de la Fou Catholique, Sect. XIII, Paris 1917. 
—B. J. Otten, S. J.. A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. 
I, St. Louis 1917, pp. 74, 133; 146, 150, 166, 216, 311, 390 sq., 398, 
4ll, 442 sqq.; Vol. II (1918), pp. 397 saq. 

The older literature on the subject is given in Maracci’s Bi- 
bliotheca Mariana, Rome 1648. 

A copious bibliography will be found in J. Bourassé, Summa 
Aurea de Laudibus B. Mariae Virgins, 13 vols., Paris 1866 sqq. 
and in G. Kolb, S. J.. Wegweiser in die Marianische Literatur, 
and ed., Freiburg 1905. 


PART II 
MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


In the first part of this treatise we have explained the 
teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the unique 
dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Deipara or Mother 
of God (eordxos keyapitwpevy), and the plenitude of grace 
with which she was endowed. 

From this fundamental teaching can be deduced by 
aprioristic reasoning a number of extraordinary and 
unique prerogatives. However, in determining these pre- 
rogatives it is advisable to discard the deductive method 
and to rely entirely on the data furnished by Revelation. 


Divine Revelation ascribes to our Lady two 
distinct classes of special prerogatives, one nega- 
tive, the other positive. 

Mary’s negative prerogatives consist in the 
removal, or absence, of all defects and blemishes 
incompatible with divine motherhood. Her posi- 
tive prerogatives may be defined as certain special 
privileges which God conferred upon her with a 
view to adorn and exalt her in a manner befitting 
her sublime dignity as Deipara. 


37 


CHAPTER T 


THE NEGATIVE PREROGATIVES OF THE BLESSED 
VIRGIN 


It is a dogmatic principle that the Mother of 
God was exempt from every defect or blemish. 
There are four separate and distinct prerogatives 
that may be enumerated under this category. 
They are: 


(1) Exemption from original sin. This priv- 
ilege of the Blessed Virgin is known as her Im- 
maculate Conception. 

(2) Immunity from personal sin. This pre- 
rogative is commonly called her sinlessness. 

(3) Freedom from bodily pollution. It is this 
privilege we mean when we speak of her as “ever 
virem.| 

(4) Exemption from the dominion of death. 
This privilege is implied in her bodily Assump- 
tion into Heaven. | 

The first two of these prerogatives have exclu- 
sive reference to the soul of our Blessed Lady; 
the third and fourth also include her body. We 
will discuss them one by one in four distinct 


Sections. 
38 


SECTION st 


MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 


I. STATE OF THE QUESTION AND MEANING OF 
THE Docma.—a) Conception (conceptio) may 
be taken either actively or passively. 

Active conception (concipere, conceptio ac- 
tiva) is the parental act of generation. Pas- 
sive conception (concipi, conceptio passiva) 1s 
the origin of a human being in the maternal 
womb. A child comes into being at the moment 
when the intellectual soul is infused into the prod- 
uct of parental generation (embryo, foetus). In 
speaking of the Immaculate Conception of the 
_ Blessed Virgin Mary, therefore, we do not mean 
the procreative act of her saintly parents (which 
may or may not have been tainted by inordinate 
concupiscence), but simply and solely the creative 
act by which Almighty God infused her immacu- 
late soul into the corporeal receptacle which had 
been prepared for it by Joachim and Anna. In 
other words, by a most extraordinary privilege the 
soul of our Lady was from the first instant of her 
existence preserved from all stain of original sin. 


b) The fact that Mary was preserved trom 
ens 


40 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


original sin does not necessarily imply that she 
was exempt from the universal necessity or need 
of being subject to it (debitum peccati originalis ). 


Theologians generally hold that, though she was de 
facto exempt from original sin, Mary incurred the debitum 
contrahendi, because else her Immaculate Conception 
would not be an effect of the atonement. 

We may distinguish a twofold debitum, proximate and 
remote. Debitum remotum merely signifies member- 
ship in the human race, based on the ordinary mode of 
propagation, 7. e., sexual generation. Debitum proxi- 
mum involves inclusion in the wilful act by which Adam, 
as the representative of the whole race, rejected the grace 
of God and implicated human nature in sin. The dogma 
of the Immaculate Conception is sufficiently safeguarded 
by admitting that Mary was subject to the debitum re- 
motum. The view of some older Scotist theologians, 
that she had not even so much as a debitum remotum 1n- 
currendi peccatum originale, cannot be reconciled with 
the solemn formula by which Pope Pius IX defined the 
dogma of the Immaculate Conception. 

Is it necessary to admit that there was also a debitum 
proximum? The majority of Catholic divines, following 
Suarez, contend that it is. The assumption of such a 
debitum, involving as it does the exemption of one sole 
individual from a strictly binding universal law, consti- 
tutes the Immaculate Conception a miracle and a far 
higher grace than it would be in the opposite hypothesis ; 
but it does not sufficiently safeguard the soul of our 
Lady against the possibility of contamination.’ 

1De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. ... de B. Virgine Maria, 4th ed., 


3,,,Sect./)2. pp. 65 sqq., Rome 1896. 
2Cfr. Bucceroni, Commentaru 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION = 41 


c) The dogma expressly says that our Lady 
owed her freedom from original sin entirely to 
the redemptive merits of her Divine Son. Like 
all other human beings, she had need of a re- 
deemer, though the manner of her redemption 
differed from that of the common run. She was 
preserved from original sin by a special and alto- 
gether unique privilege. 

As this privilege is based entirely on her dignity as 
Mother of God, it would be rash to assume that it was 
granted also to other Saints, e. g., John the Baptist or 
St. Joseph. Inasmuch as Mary never even for one mo- 
ment contracted the slightest taint of original sin, theo- 
logians commonly speak of her redemption as redemptio 
anticipata or praeredemptio (sometimes also praemunda- 
tio). This Preredemption, according to Catholic teach- 
ing, formally consisted in the infusion of sanctifying grace 
into her soul immediately after its creation. In other 
words, the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, like 
that of our First Parents in Paradise,* was simultaneous 
with her creation. . 


d) All these momenta are embodied in the 
definition enunciated by Pius IX in his famous 
Bull “/neffabilis Deus,’ of December 8th, 1854: 
“We define that the doctrine which declares that 
the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant 
of her conception, by a singular grace and priv- 
ilege granted to her by Almighty God, through 


8Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernat- 
ural, p. 199, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1916, 


42 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


the merits of Christ Jesus, Saviour of mankind, 
was preserved from all stain of original sin, is 
a doctrine revealed by God and therefore must be 
held firmly and constantly by all faithful Chris- 
tians.” * 


The Bult not only defines the dogma, but declares that 
it is “revealed by God.” The subject of this singular 
privilege is the person of Mary; it has nothing to do with 
her progenitors. The privilege itself consists in Mary’s 
actual preservation from original sin through the merits 
of Jesus Christ. 

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is rejected 
by the Anglicans, and by Protestants generally, also by 
many schismatics and the so-called Old Catholics.’ 


2. ProoF FROM SACRED ScCRIPTURE.—The 
dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not ex- 
pressly enunciated in Sacred Scripture, but, as 
Father S. J. Hunter justly observes, “this circum- 
stance will have no weight against its accept- 
ance, except with those who assume, without a 
scrap of reason, that the whole of the revelation 
given by God is contained in the inspired Books.” ° 


4“ Definimus doctrinam, quae terque credendam.” (Denzinger- 
tenet Beatam Virginem Mariam in Bannwart, n. 1641.) 


primo instanti suae conceptionts 5 See Edw. Preuss, Zum Lobe der 
fuisse singulari omnipotentis Det unbefleckten Empbfingnis von Einem, 
gratia et privilegio, intuitu merito- der sie vormals gelistert hat, Frei- 
yum Christi Iesu Salvatoris hu- burg 1879 (cfr. Pohle, Lehrbuch der 
mani generis, ab omni originalis Dogmatik, sth ed. ‘* Vorwort,” 
culpae labe praeservatam immunem, Paderborn 1912). 

esse a Deo revelatam atque idcirco 6 Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 


ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constan- Vol.) 11,’ Pe. 853,400) ed. 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 43 


The Bull “/neffabilis” cites two important texts, ’ 
which certainly point to the Blessed Virgin as the 
recipient of some extraordinary spiritual favor, 
—a favor which cannot be fully explained by any- 
thing short of the dogma of her Immaculate Con- 
ception. True, the exegetical argument from 
these texts, taken by itself, scarcely exceeds the 
limits of probability; but the lack of Scriptural 
evidence can be abundantly supplied from the 
writings of the Fathers. 

a) The so-called Protevangelium (Gen. III, 14 
sq.) runs as follows: “Et ait Dominus Deus ad 
serpentem: . . . Inimicitias ponam inter te et 
mulierem (781), et semen tuum et semen illius: 
ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu imsidiaberis cal- 
caneo eius—And the Lord God said to the ser- 
pent: ... I will put enmity between thee and 
the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall 
crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her 
heel.” The Hebrew text has: “he [sin] shall 
crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.” 
The only difference between the two versions is 
that, whereas the Vulgate describes “the woman”’ 
as crushing the serpent, the original Hebrew text, 
by employing a male pronoun, ascribes this act to 
“the seed of the woman.” The Septuagint 
agrees with the Hebrew, rendering the passage 
as follows: atrés cov rypyoe Kepadyv, Kal ov TNpHTELS 
airod mrépav, This diversity does not, however, 

4 


44 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


affect the dogmatic argument, which may be for- 
mulated thus: 

According to the wellnigh unanimous inter- 
pretation of the Fathers, beginning with St. Jus- 
tin Martyr and St. Ignatius of Antioch, the “‘ser- 
pent crusher” is a determinate person, namely 
our Divine Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, and 
the woman whose enmity is destined to prove 
fatal to the serpent, is the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
These two persons are opposed to two other be- 
ings, vig., the serpent, who is none other than 
Satan, and his “seed,” 7. e., his clientéle of sin- 
ners.” God Himself has “put enmity” between 
these two pairs, Christ and His mother on the 
one side, and Satan and his followers on the other, 
—an enmity which will ultimately end in vic- 
tory for the former and destruction for the 
latter. Mary, being on the side of Christ, with 
the same enmity between her and Satan as that 
which exists between the latter and her Divine 
Son, must also share in His triumph. This 
would not be the case had she, even for a single 
moment, been tainted by original sin; for in that 
hypothesis Satan would have triumphed over her, 
and she would have been, at least temporarily, his 
friend and ally, and the Protogospel would con- 
sequently be untrue. It follows that, viewed in 


7 Cfr. Matth. III, 7; John VIII, Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and 
44; Acts XIII, 10; 1 John III, 8. Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 184 saq., New 
On the Protevangelium, see A. J. York 1893. 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 45 


the light of Christian tradition, the Protevange- 
lium foreshadows not only the victory achieved 
by Christ through the atonement, but implicitly 
also the Immaculate Conception of His Blessed 
Mother.® 

b) Leaving the Old Testament, we proceed to 
consider the Angelic Salutation, Luke I, 28: 
“Hail, full of grace,” in connection with the words 
addressed to our Lady by Elizabeth, Luke I, 42: 
“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is 
the fruit of thy womb.” ° Gabriel’s greeting rep- 
resents the divine favor enjoyed by the Blessed 
Virgin as the highest form of grace consistent 
with her state, and when Elizabeth, ‘filled with 
the Holy Ghost,” hailed Mary as the “mother of 
my Lord,” she did not pronounce a conventional 
salutation, but wished to say (as the Greek trans- 
lation &v yevoéiv of a Hebrew superlative plainly in- 
dicates): ‘Thou art the only blessed one among 
women, because the “fruit of thy womb’ is the 
Son of God.” We have shown in a previous 
chapter that Mary, as the Mother of God, was 
“full of grace.” She would have lacked the ful- 


8 For further information on this Rome 1854; Legnani, De Secunda 


subject see Palmieri, De Deo Cre- 
ante et Elevante, thes. 87, Rome 
1878; G. B. Tepe, Instit.. Theol., 
Vol. III, pp. 688 sqq., Paris 1896; 
Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter in 
der Hi. Schrift, pp. ror sqq., Dp. 
116 (Engl. tr., pp. 108 sqq.); Fr. X. 
Patrizi, De Immaculata Mariae Ori- 
gine a Deo Praedicta Disquisitio, 


Eva, Commentarius in Protoevange- 
lium, Venice 1888; Arendt, S. J., De 
Protevangelii Habitudine ad Im- 
maculatam Deiparae Conceptionem, 
Rome 1904. H 

9 evrAoynuevn ov év yuvarkiy, Kat 
evNoynuevos 6 Kapmos THs KotNlas 
JOU. 


46 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


ness of grace had she not, from the first instant 
of her existence, been entirely exempt from sin. 
In other words, her plenitudo gratiae ** must be 
conceived as unlimited in intensity as well as 
duration. 


Rightly, therefore, does Martin Luther remark of our 
Lady: “ We could not say to her: © Blessed art thou,’ 
if she had at any time been subject to malediction.”’ ** 
Thus conceived, the prerogative of plenitudo gratiae as 
well as the “ blessedness ” of Mary logically include her 
Immaculate Conception, as a cause includes its effect or an 
antecedent its consequent. 

This argument is confirmed by the traditional anti- 
thesis, so often emphasized by the Fathers and Catholic 
divines, between Mary and Eve. “ Hail [Mary],’ says 
Pope Innocent III (d. 1216), “ because through thee the 
name of Eve is changed. Eve was full of sin, but thou 
art full of grace; Eve withdrew from God, but God is 
with thee; Eve was cursed, but thou art blessed among 
women; through Eve death entered the world, through 
thee life returned.”12 This antithetical comparison 
would be meaningless had Mary ever, even for one brief 
moment, made common cause, as it were, with Adam’s 
sinful spouse.** 


10 V. supra, pp. 24 sqq. 

11“ Man kénnte eu thr 
sprechen: ‘ Gebenedeit bist du,’ 
wenn sie je unter der Maledeiung 
gelegen wire.” (Kirchenpostille, 
1527.) 

12 Innocent III, Sermo de Virg. 
Purif.: “Ave, quia per te muta- 
bitur nomen Evae; illa fuit plena 
peccato, sed tu plena gratia; illa re- 


nicht 


cessit a Deo, sed Dominus tecum; 
illa fuit maledicta in mulieribus, 
sed tu benedicta; per illam mors in- 
travit in orbem, sed per te vita 
rediit ad orbem.” 

13 This consideration is beauti- 
fully developed by Al. Schaefer, 
Die Gottesmutter in der Hl. Schrift, 
pp. 118 sqq., 123 sdq. (Engl. tr., 
113 sqq-) 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 47 


3. THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION.—The > 
ecclesiastical tradition of the dogma of the Im- 
maculate Conception plainly falls into two sepa- 
rate and distinct stages. The first may be termed 
that of quiet and undisputed possession. It ex- 
tends up to the time of the famous controversy 
which broke out in 1140. The second period is 
characterized by a gradual clarification of the 
dogma in the minds of the faithful, and ends with 
its solemn definition by Pope Pius IX, A. D. 1854. 

a) During the first period (from about 250 to 
t100) the Orient, on the whole, gives evidence of 
a much clearer conception of the dogma than the 
West, though the Latins no doubt virtually be- 
lieved in the Immaculate Conception. Perhaps 
it is not too much to say that, had the Schoolmen 
following St. Anselm known the writings of the 
Greek Fathers as well as we know them to-day, 
they would never have opposed the dogma.™ 

a) Both the Oriental and the Latin churches 
held in common, as part of their primitive tradi- 
tion, two central ideas, in which the dogma of the 
Immaculate Conception was implicitly contained. 
These fundamental conceptions were: (1) 
Mary’s transcendent purity, and (2) the striking 
contrast between her and Eve, so similar to that 
existing between Christ and Adam. 


14Cfr. Perrone, De Immaculato B. Virginis Mariae Conceptu, P, II, 
cap. 5, Rome 1847. 


48 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


, In regard to the first of these principles, the dogmatic 
Bull of Pius LX says: 

“ Atque haec quidem doctrina adeo maiorum mentes 
animosque occupavit, ut singularis et omnino mirus penes 
illos invaluerit loquendi usus, quo Deiparam saepissime 
compellarunt immaculatam, omnique ex parte immacula- 
tam, innocentem et innocentissimam, illibatam et unde- 
quaque illibatam, sanctam et ab omni peccati sorde alie- 
nissimam, totam puram, totam intemeratam ac ipsam 
prope puritatis et innocentiae formam, pulchritudine pul- 
chriorem, venustate venustiorem, sanctiorem sanctitate so- 
lamque sanctam purissimamque anima et corpore, quae 
supergressa est omnem integritatem et virginitatem, ac 
sola tota facta est domicilium universarum gratiarum 
Sanctissimi Spiritus et quae, solo Deo excepto, exstittt 
cunctis superior et ipsis Cherubim et Seraphim et omni 
exercitu angelorum naturaé pulchrior, formosior et sanc- 
tior, cui praedicandae coelestes et terrenae linguae minime 
sufficiunt.” 1° 

It is impossible to assume that the early Christians be- 
lieved Mary to have been subject to original sin, since the 
Fathers of both the Greek and the Latin Church extol 
her as “all-holy,” “a virginal paradise preserved from 
the curse of God,” “a virgin without the slightest taint 
of sin,” “a miracle of grace, holier and purer than the 
angels,” etc., etc. No matter how highly we may rate 
the sanctity of a converted sinner, it would be untrue 
to say that he is absolutely stainless. For the sins 
which he has committed never cease to overshadow 
his life. To compare Mary’s sanctity to the immacu-: 
late purity of the glorious seraphs, nay, to exalt it 
in unmeasured terms above that purity, is but one 


15 The Patristic texts upon which this eulogy is based may be found 
in Passaglia and Palmieri, 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 49 


remove from the formal declaration of the dogma of 
the Immaculate Conception. 

The dogma may also be logically deduced from the 
Patristic conception of Mary as the second Eve. As 
Adam was the counterpart of Christ,’® so Eve was the 
antithesis of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Or, to express 
the same truth somewhat differently: As Eve, in 
conjunction with Adam, embodies the principle of sin, 
so Mary, in conjunction with Christ, represents the well- 
spring of sanctity and righteousness. If the Blessed 
Virgin, as the anti-type of Eve, essentially participates in 
the sanctity of her Divine Son, she cannot possibly have 
been tainted by original sin; else the Scriptural par- 
allel would be meaningless. 

What renders this deduction even more convincing is 
the fact that the Fathers, not content with opposing 
Mary to sinful Eve, put her on a par with our proto- 
mother while yet in the state of original justice, that is 
to say, conceived her as equally holy in origin with “ the 
mother of all the living.” 

This significant parallel between Eve and our Blessed 
Lady is found, as a part of the traditional deposit of 
faith, in the writings of the earliest Fathers and ecclesias- 
tical writers, beginning with St. Justin Martyr, St. Ire- 
nzus, and Tertullian, down to St. John of Damascus. We 
will quote a few characteristic passages. 

“The First-born of the Father before all creatures,” 
says St. Justin Martyr, “became a man through the 
Virgin, that by what way the disobedience arising from 
the serpent had its beginning, by that way also it might 
have its undoing. For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, 
conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought 
forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, tak- 


16 Cfr, Rom. V, 14 sqq. 


50 MARY’S SPECIAL .PREROGATIVES 


ing faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good 
tidings .. . answered: ‘ Let it be done unto me accord- 
ing to thy word.’”’*7 This is “truly a most remarkable 
utterance in the mouth of a writer who flourished in the 
middle of the second century.” 18 

Tertullian '® says: “ For into Eve, as yet a virgin, had 
crept the word which was the framer of death. Equally 
into a virgin was to be introduced the Word of God, 
which was the builder-up of life; that, what by that sex 
had gone into perdition might by the same sex be brought 
back to salvation. Eve had believed the Serpent, Mary 
believed Gabriel; what Eve sinned by faith, Mary atoned 
bystaithy 7-2 

In the East, St. Ephrem Syrus (+ 373) gives expres- 
sion to a similar thought: “Those two innocent, those 
two simple women, Mary and Eve, had been indeed cre- 
ated quite equal, but afterwards one became the cause of 
our death, the other of our life.’ 74 

Theodotus of Ancyra (d. about 445), a friend and fel- 
low-combatant of St. Cyril of Alexandria, says: “ In- 
stead of the virgin Eve, who was unto us the instrument 


17 Dial. esPryph., c. 100.) The 
translation is substantially New- 


brieli; quod illa credendo deliquit, 
haec credendo delevit.” 


man’s (“A Letter Addressed to the 
Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., on Occa- 
sion of His Eirenicon,” reprinted 
in Certain Difficulties Felt by Angli- 
cuns in Catholic Teaching Con- 
sidered, Vol. II, p. 33). 

180. Bardenhewer, Geschichte 
der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. I, 
p. 236, Freiburg 1902. 

19 De Carne Christi, c. 17. “‘In 
virginem enim adhuc Evam irrepse- 
rat verbum exstructorium vitae, ut 
quod per eiusmodi sexum abierat in 
perditionem, per eundem sexum re- 
digeretur in  salutem. Crediderat 
Eva serpenti, credidit Maria Ga- 


20 Cfr. St. Irenexus, Adv. Haer., 
EIiDi22,) 430 rogers Cb bes passages 
translated by Newman, /. c., pp. 34 
sq. Cfr. also Bardenhewer, op. cit., 
Pp. 520 sq.) 

21“ Duae innocentes, duae sim- 
plices, Maria et Eva, sibi quidem 
prorsus aequales factae erant; post- 
ea vero altera facta est causa mor- 
tis, altera vitae nostrae.”’ (Op. Syr., 
II, 327.) Apposite texts from the 
liturgy of the Syrian Church will 
be found apud Holeika, Témoig- 
nages de VEglise Syto-Maronite en 
Faveur de VImmaculée Conception, 
Beirut 1904. 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION $I 


of death, God, for the purpose of giving life, chose a_ 
virgin most pleasing to Himself and full of grace, who, 
included in woman’s sex, was free from woman’s sin, a 
virgin innocent, without taint, holy in soul and body, asa 
lily budding in the midst of thorns, unlearned in the evils 
of Eve,... who was a daughter of Adam, but unlike 
hin. 24 

The same belief inspired St. John of Damascus when he 
wrote: “ Hail, thou the only blessed one among women, 
who hast repaired the fall of our first mother Eve... . 
Hail, thou who art truly full of grace, because thou art 
holier than the angels and more excellent than the arch-— 
angels... . Hail, thou full of grace, because thou art 
more beautiful than the Cherubim and more exalted than 
the Seraphim. ... Hail, full of grace, thou who art 
higher than heaven and purer than the sun which we 
pehold.””:2° 


B) A careful analysis of these central ideas 
naturally led to the explicit conclusion that 
the Blessed Mother of God must have been pure 
and holy also in her origin. This conclusion, 
though not formally equivalent to an enunciation 
of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, dif- 
fered but little if anything from it materially. Its 
logical development was partly theoretical, by 


> 


22“ Loco virginis Evae, quae no- lia Adam, sed ipsi dissimilis.’ 
? 


bis instrumentum mortis facta est, 
Deus elegit ad dandam vitam Vir- 
ginem sibt placentissimam et gratié 
plenam, quae femina existens ab 
iniquitate feminae aliena fuit, Vir- 
ginem innocentem, immaculatam, 
Sanctam spiritu et corpore, pro- 
ductam ut lilium inter spinas, quae 
non novit mala Evae,... quae fuit 


(Hom. in S. Deiparam, VI, n. 11, 
apud Gallandi, Bibliotheca Vet. Pa- 
trum Antiquorumque Script. Eccles., 
Venice 1765-81, Vol. IX, 475.) 

23 Hom. in Annunt. B. M. V., 
II. For a fuller treatment of this 
topic see Hurter, Compend. Theol. 
Dogm., Vol. II, n. 631 sqq., Inns- 
bruck 1896, 


52 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


means of express doctrinal judgments, and partly 
practical, through the introduction of the festival 
of the Immaculate Conception. 


The theoretical development of the dogma is suffi- 
ciently illustrated by the following quotations. 

St. Hippolytus (about 220), who was a pupil of St. 
Ireneus, says: “ The ark which was made of indestruc- 
tible timber (cfr. Ex. XXV, 10 sqq.), was the Redeemer 
Himself. The ark symbolized His tent [body], which 
was impervious to decay and engendered no sinful cor- 
ruption. ... . The Lord was sinless, because, accord- 
ing to His humanity, He was fashioned from indestruc- 
tible wood, i. e., out of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost, 
lined within and without with the purest gold of the 
Logos.” 24 Dr. Bardenhewer remarks on this passage: 
“ This juxtaposition of our Lord and the Virgin as the 
only sinless representatives of the human race, consti- 
tutes the characteristic form in which the Immaculate 
Conception was taught in the early days.” 

Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (about 250) wrote 
against Paul of Samosata: “Christ did not live in a 
servile tent, but in His holy ark... and He preserved 
His mother as one who was blessed from head to foot, 
undefiled, even as He alone knew the manner of her con- 
ception and birth.” *° 

Our classic witness is again St. Ephrem Syrus (about 
370), who represents the Church of Edessa as address- 
ing the Lord Jesus Christ in these words: ‘‘ Thou and 
Thy mother are the only [human beings] that are per- 

24 Quoted by Theodoret, Dial., 1 Literatur, Vol. II, p. 553, Freiburg 


(Migne, P. G., X, 863). ; 1903. © 
25 Geschichte der altkirchlichen 26 Ep. adv. Paul. Samosat. 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 53 


fectly beautiful in every respect; for there is no spot in 
Thee, O Lord, nor any taint in Thy mother.” ?7 

There is an alleged “ Report of the Priests and Dea- 
cons of Achaia on the Martyrdom of St. Andrew,” 28 
which used to be quoted as the most ancient Patristic tes- 
timony in support of the dogma of the Immaculate Con- 
ception.*? We know now that this report is probably no 
older than the fifth century. But even as a document of 
the fifth century it is not without value. It contains this 
characteristic passage: “ Because the first man [Adam] 
was created of undefiled earth [i. ¢., earth which had not 
yet been cursed], ... it was necessary that out of an 
immaculate Virgin there should be born the perfect man, 
the Son of God.” 

St. Augustine’s attitude in regard to this question is of 
special interest. He taught (1) that, as a rule, original 
sin precedes personal sin, and (2) that the Blessed Virgin 
Mary alone of all human beings was personally sin- 
less. These premises implicitly contain the dogma of the 
Immaculate Conception. But St. Augustine never for- 
mally drew this conclusion. Julian of Eclanum accused 
him of treating the Deipara with even greater disrespect 
than the heretic Jovinian: “He [Jovinian] makes 
Mary’s virginity come to an end owing to the law of 
parturition, you transfer Mary herself to the Devil’s book, 
owing to the law of birth; ” ®° to which the saintly Bishop 
replied: ** “ We do not transfer Mary to the Devil’s book 
owing to the law of birth; but the reason we do not, 
is that this law is broken by the grace of being born 


27Carm., Nistb., ni 27, ed. G: 30“ Ille virginitatem Mariae par- 
Bickell, p. 122, Lipsiae 1866. tus conditione dissolvit, tu ipsam 

28 Its text in Migne, P. G., IT, Mariam diabolo nascendi conditione 
1226, transcribis.” 

29 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 31“ Non  tvranscribimus diabolo 


trology, Pp. 104. Mariam conditione nascendi, sed 


54 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


again.” What else can this mean if not: Mary ought 
by right to have been conceived in original sin, but the 
grace of God preserved her pure and holy.*? 


y) The popular belief in the Immaculate Con- 
ception manifested itself at a comparatively early 
date by the introduction into the liturgy of a dis- 
tinct festival. This was known at first as Con- 
ceptio Sanctae Annae. 


The reference to it in the Typikon S. Sabae (com- 
posed about 485) is spurious, but the festival undoubt- 
edly became popular in the Orient as early as the second 
half of the seventh century, for a hymn written by 
St. Andrew of Crete (d. about 720) bears the inscrip- 
tion: “Die nona Decembris Conceptio Sanctae ac Det 
Aviae Annae.’ Inthe West the feast of the Immaculate 
Conception was celebrated about the year 840 in the king- 
dom of Naples and Sicily, whither it had no doubt been 
transplanted: from the Orient. In England the festival 
was observed before the Norman Conquest,** though it 
did not spread widely in that country till the time of Ab- 
bot Anselm of St. Edmundsbury, who was a cousin of St. 
Anselm (d. 1109). Irish Catholics probably celebrated 
the feast of the Immaculate Conception as early as 9o00.** 


ideo [non ‘transcribimus], quia ipsa by Edmund Bishop in his tract, On 


conditio nascendi solvitur gratia the Origins of the Feast of the 
renascendi.” (Op. Imperf. contra Conception of the Bl. Virgin Mary, 
Tulian., IV, n. 122.) London 1904. Cfr. also Kellner, 

32 Cfr. Th. Livius, C. SS. R.,  Heortology (English ed.), Appen- 
The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers, dix X: ‘“ English Writers and the 


Feast of the Immaculate Concep- 
tion,” pp. 445-7. 
34 Cfr. H. Thurston, S. J., “The 


pp. 243 saq.; Tixeront, History of 
Dogmas, Vol. III, pp. 466 sq. Fora 
solution of certain other Patristic 


difficulties we refer the student to 
Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. HUI, 
3rd ed., pp. 170 sq., Freiburg 1908. 

33 The evidence for this is given 


Irish Origins of Our Lady’s Con- 
ception Feast,’ in the Month, 1904, 
I, pp. 449 sdd. 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION Be 


When the festival began to make its way from Italy 
to Gaul, in the twelfth century, a famous theological 
controversy arose as to its lawfulness. This was, how- 
ever, confined to the circle of the learned and never 
affected the masses of the people. The cult of the Jm- 
maculata steadily grew more popular and finally struck 
root in Rome, where the feast was first observed in the 
fourteenth century.” 

In celebrating this festival the faithful did not mean to 
honor the Blessed Virgin as one who, like St. John the 
Baptist, had been cleansed from original sin in the ma- 
ternal womb,®* but as originally conceived without the 
slightest stain.*” 


b) The second period of the controversy, which 
led to a general clarification of ideas in the West- 
ern world—the East never wavered in its belief 
in the Immaculate Conception—began in 1140, 
when St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote his famous 
letter to the Canons of Lyons, who had begun to 
celebrate the feast of our Lady’s Conception with- 
out having the authority of the Holy See for this 
“innovation.” 


a) St. Bernard insisted that nothing but what is 
“holy” can be the object of devotion, and in a vehement 
letter warned the Canons against the absurdity of cele- 


35 Cfr. Benedict XIV, De Festis honor of St. Elizabeth: Festum 


B. Virginis, c. 15, n. 21.— On the 
institution and spread of the Fes- 
tival of the Immaculate Conception 
see especially Kellner, Heortology, 
pp. 239-264, London 1908. 

86 There was such a feast in 


Conceptionis S. Elisabeth. 

37 Cfr. Palmieri, De Deo Creante 
et Elevante, thes. 84; Kellner, 
Heortology, pp. 241 sqq. On the 
ancient liturgies see Tepe, Instit. 
Theolog., Vol. III, p. 699, Paris 
1896, 


56 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


brating a “ false sanctity,” that is, the sanctity of a being 
not yet existing, or, what would be still worse, “ sin,” 
1. €., the carnal act of Mary’s parents. Hence, while he 
raised no objection to the feast of our Lady’s nativ- 
ity, he did protest against celebrating her “ immaculate 
conception.’’—“‘ No doubt,” he wrote, “the mother of 
God was holy even before she was born, and the Church is 
by no means mistaken in keeping holy the day of her 
birth . . . But she could not be holy before she existed, 
as she did not exist before she was conceived. Or did 
sanctity perhaps commingle with her conception so that 
she was sanctified and conceived at one and the same 
time? ... Or are we to assume that there was no sin 
[concupiscence] where there was sensual delectation? 
Or will some one perhaps say that Mary was not con- 
ceived of a man but of the Holy Ghost? But this is 
something hitherto unheard of.” * 

If we take the term conception in its active sense (con- 
ceptio activa sive seminalis) in contradistinction and 
opposition to passive conception (conceptio passiva sive 
personalis), which coincides with the creation of the spir- 
itual soul and its infusion into the foetus, St. Bernard 
was undoubtedly right in demanding that the conception 
of our Lady be excluded from public and private worship. 
But he went too far when he argued: “ Hence, if Mary 
could not be sanctified before her conception, since she 
was not yet in existence, nor in the act of conception itself, 


38“ Fuit procul dubio et mater 
Domini ante sancta quam nata, nec 
fallitur omnino sancta ecclesia sanc- 
tam reputans ipsum nativitatis eius 
diem. ...Sed non valuit ante 
sancta esse quam esse, siquidem non 
erat, antequam conciperetur. An 
forte inter amplexus maritales sanc- 
titas se ipst conceptut immiscuit, ut 
simul et sanctificata fuerit et con- 


cepta? ... Aut  certe peccatum 
[sctl. concupiscentia] quomodo non 
fuit, ubt libido non defmt? Nisi 
forte quis dicat de Spiritu sancto 
eam et non de viro conceptam fuisse: 
sed id hactenus inauditum.”’ (Ep., 
ad Canonicos Lugd., n. 5 sqq., 
apud Migne, P. L., CULXXXII, 


333+) 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 


on account of the sin [concupiscence] involved therein, it ’ 
follows that she was sanctified in the womb after concep- 
tion, which, since she was cleansed from sin, made her na- 
tivity holy, not her conception.” *® This argument is fal- 
lacious, because it ignores a fourth possibility, namely the 
sanctification of Mary’s soul in the instant of its creation 
(conceptio passiva personalis). 

What led a number of medieval theologians to op- 
pose the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was 
that they misunderstood the real point at issue. Instead 
of endlessly harping on the query: “ Was the Blessed 
Virgin Mary sanctified before or after the infusion of 
her soul into her body?” they should have formulated 
the problem thus: “Was the soul of the. Blessed 
Virgin sanctified at the moment of its creation?” But 
they disregarded this intrinsic possibility, on which the 
dogma of the Immaculate Conception rests. It never 
occurred to them to put the question thus, because, while 
they firmly believed that the Blessed Virgin Mary stood 
as much in need of redemption as the rest of humankind, 
they were unable to conceive redemption otherwise than as 
a cleansing from original sin with which all men are 
born into the world. Had the Scholastics generally per- 


sol. c«, n. 7: “St igitur notion of the active conception, 


[Maria] ante conceptum suit sanc- 
tificart minime potuit, quoniam non 
erat, sed nec in ipso quidem con- 
ceptu propter peccatum quod inerat 
[t. e@. concupiscentiam], restat ut 
post conceptum in utero iam ex- 
istens sanctificationem accepisse cre- 
daiur, quae excluso peceato sancitam 
fecerit nativitatem, non tamen et 
conceptionem.”’ — * St. Bernard,”’ 
comments Archbishop Ullathorne 
(The Immaculate Conception of the 
Mother of God, Revised ed. by 
Canon Iles, London i905, pp. 135 
sq.), “is clearly arguing upon the 


which the Church does not contem- 
plate in the mystery. Hence Albert 
the Great observes: ‘ We say that 
the Blessed Virgin was not sancti- 
fied before animation, and _ the 
affirmative contrary to this is the 
heresy condemned by St. Bernard 
in his epistie to the canons of 
Eyons:; Gn 7 LiD i rdistnissu art. 4). 
And St. Bonaventure also says that 
from St. Bernard’s words ‘it is 
simply to be conceded that her 
flesh was not sanctified before ani- 
mation)> (In DIT, dist., 3)ipy x, a..z, 
qu. 1).’? 


58 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


ceived, what the subtle mind of Scotus saw so clearly, U82.8 
that redemption may be conceived as preredemption (pres- 
ervation or prevention), they would undoubtedly have 
been unanimous in deducing the doctrine of the Im- 
maculate Conception as a logical conclusion from the 
traditional teaching on the perpetual and absolute sin- 
lessness of Mary. It has been said of St. Thomas that he 
virtually held the conclusions which he formally com- 
batted in his Mariological discussions, and this is equally 
true of all other Scholastic theologians who thought it 
their duty to oppose the doctrine of the Immaculate Con- 
ception.*? 

B) St. Bernard’s letter to the Canons of Lyons drew 
forth emphatic protests from such learned and pious the- 
ologians as Friar Nicholas of St. Alban’s.** But these 
protests remained unheeded, until the famous Francis- 
can Duns Scotus (d. 1308) refuted the chief objection 
that had been raised against the doctrine of the Im- 
maculate Conception. Had the “Subtle Doctor” and 
his school done nothing else for the Catholic cause than to 
defend and successfully establish this dogma, they would 
deserve a place of honor in the history of medieval the- 
ology. 

Scotus argued as follows: “ He who is the most per- 
fect mediator must have a most perfect act of mediation 
in regard to some person on whose behalf he exercises his 


40 On the attitude of St. Thomas, 
cfr. Archbishop Ullathorne, The 
Immaculate Conception, p. 137: 
“His great difficulty appears to 
have arisen on the question how she 
could have been redeemed if she 
had not sinned. This difficulty he 
has raised in not fewer than ten 
passages of his writings. But 
whilst St. Thomas thus held back 
from the essential point of the doc- 


trine, it is most worthy to be re- 
marked that he himself laid down 
the principles which, after they had 
been drawn together, and worked 
out through a longer course of 
thought, enabled other minds to 
furnish the true solution of his diffi- 
culty from his own premises.” 

41 Cfr. ‘Migne, P. L., CCII, 617 
sqq. 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION — £9 


mediatorial office. Now Christ is a most perfect medi- 
ator ... and He had no more exalted relation to any 
person than to the B. V. Mary... . This could not be, 
had He not merited for her preservation from original 
sins ctr . 

The subtle difficulty that Mary was a daughter of 
Adam before she could become an adopted daughter of 
God, and therefore must necessarily have experienced the 
taint of original sin, Scotus solved by applying the Scho- 
lastic distinction between ordo naturae and ordo tem- 
ports.** In the order of nature, he argued, Mary was a 
daughter of Adam before she was justified; but in the 
order of time her sanctification coincided with the crea- 
tion of her soul. In elaborating this idea he employs a 
beautiful simile. “ Some,” he says, “ have been raised up 
after they had fallen, but the Virgin Mary was, as it 
were, sustained in the very act of falling, and prevented 
from falling, like the two men who were about to tumble 
Uitoxaepit 27:45 

The strength of the Scotistic argument lies mainly in 
the concept of praeredemptio. Preredemption, Scotus 
contends, is possible, because absolutely speaking God 
can infuse grace without the expulsion of any previously 
existing sin.*® Preredemption was a fit mode of pre- 
serving the Blessed Virgin from sin, because she was the 
.mother of God, and as such could never be at enmity 


42 “ Perfectissimus mediator habet ZS NC. Us iene tS) Sad. 


perfectissimum actum mediandi re- 
spectu alicuius personae, pro qua 
mediat. Sed Christus est perfectis- 
simus mediator.... Sed respectu 
nulliws personae habuit excellenti- 
orem gradum quam respectu Mariae. 
-.. Sed hoc non esset, nisi meruis- 
set eam praeservart a peccato origi- 
nalt.” (Comment. in Quatuor Li- 


bros Sententiarum, III, dist. 3, qu. 


he paky ls) 


44 Alu -post casum erectt sunt, 
virgo Maria quast in ipso casu sus- 
tenia est, ne rueret, sicut exemplum 
ponitur de duobus cadentibus in 
Wto RGN cs, ney 2) y 

45 “ Absolute posset esse infusio 
gratiae sine expulsione alicuius cul- 
pae praecedentis, sicut fuit in b. 
Virgine.” (Rep., IV, dist. 16, qu. 
2, n. 26.) 


60 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


with God, which would have been the case, for a time at 
least, had she not been preserved from original sin.** 

The Scotists nearly all followed the lead of their mas- 
ter. Among the zealous Franciscan defenders of the 
Immaculate Conception two deserve special mention: 
Peter Aureolus (d. 1322), and Francis Mayron (d. 
1327), who wrote copiously in defense of the famous 
syllogism: “ Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit,’ that is to say: 
It was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should 
be free from the power of sin and Satan from the first 
moment of her existence; it was in God’s power to give 
her this privilege; therefore he gave it.*” 

y) It was due solely to the ancient feud between the 
Franciscans and the Dominicans that the latter now 
sharply renewed their opposition to the doctrine of 
the Immaculate Conception with a special appeal to the 
authority of St. Thomas. Some Dominican divines even 
went so far as to censure the Scotist view as heretical. 
The opposition, which was at first conducted with prudent 
moderation by men of the stamp of Cardinal Torquemada 
(1388-1468), eventually developed into a veritable furor 
theologicus. Bondelli (1481) and Bartholomew Spina 
(d. 1546) were particularly vehement. Besides such 
moderate opponents as Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534), 
Francis a Sylvestris (1474-1528), and Bartholomew de 
Medina (1528-1581), the Order of St. Dominic, at this 
critical juncture, also furnished a few defenders of the 
doctrine, notably Ambrosius Catharinus (1487-1553), 
John a S. Thoma (1589-1644), and Natalis Alexander 
(1639-1724). 


46 Mater Dei, quae nunquam bros Sent., III, dist. 18, qu. 1, n. 


fuit inimica actualiter ratione pec- 13) 
cati actualis nec ratione originalis; 47 Scotus, Comment. in Quatuor 
fuisset tamen, nisi fuisset praeser- Libros Sent., III, dist. 3. 


vata.’ (Comment. in Quatuor Li- 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 61? 


The first serious attempt to upset the authority of St. 
Thomas and to blaze a way for the doctrine of the 
Scotists, which was constantly strengthening its claims, 
was made by Seraphine Capponi della Porretta, ©. P. 
(1536-1614), who endeavored to show that the Angelic 
Doctor had been an advocate, or at least no Opponent, 
of the Immaculate Conception. When, in process of 
time, the Thomistic position was gradually perceived to be 
untenable, the Thomists one by one retired from the fray 
and tried to interpret St. Thomas in favor of the 
Scotistic doctrine, as the Jesuits had done from the be- 
ginning. Already before the foundation of the Society 
of Jesus, Cardinal Cajetan had observed that “ among 
modern theologians the number of those who hold that 
the Blessed Virgin was preserved from original sin, is in- 
finite.” *® The Jesuit Peter Canisius (1521-1597) could 
truthfully say of his own time: “Very few now hold 
the contrary opinion, and these are ashamed to speak their 
mind openly and consider it dangerous to profess their 
belief in public. If they dared to speak out, they would 
meet with public contradiction and give offense to the 
people; to such a degree has the opinion adverse to the 
Immaculate Conception been weakened, exploded, and as" 
it’ were cast out.” 4° 

Those who had opposed the doctrine withdrew before 
long to their lecture rooms, while the Christian populace 


48“ Doctores tenentes B. Vir- 
ginem esse praeservatam a peccato 
original, sunt numero infiniti, si ad 
modernos spectemus.’ (Opusc. de 
Concept. Virg. ad Leonem X.) 

49 Canisius, De Maria Deipara, I, 


7: “Qui secus modo sentiunt, 
eorum sane rarus est numerus, 
hique pudore impediti, quod in 


animo gerunt et secum ipsi tacite 


loquuntur ac sentiunt, palam efferre 
ac pronuntiare non satis tutum ar- 
bitrantur; tum, st id facere quidem 
audeant, haud sine publica contra- 
dictione vulgique offensione audiun- 
tur: usque adeo et invisa et debili- 
tata et explosa et quodammodo 
eiecta est penitus nunc opinio ad- 
versariorum.” 


62 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


continued to profess the Immaculate Conception with 
constantly increasing fervor. 


8) Thus the process of clarification, which had 
begun in the twelfth century, gradually took its 
course, the Church either urging on or restrain- 
ing the combatants, as prudence dictated. 

The Council of Basle (1439), in its thirty-sixth 
session, declared the doctrine of the Immaculate 
Conception to be the official teaching of the 
Church. Though not a binding definition (for 
the Council was at that time without a head), this 
declaration attests the belief of the fifteenth cen- 
tury. 

Sixtus IV, by a decree dated February 28, 
1476, granted indulgences to all who recited the 
canonical office or assisted at the Mass of the Im- 
maculate Conception,*® and when this did not 
abate the conflict, in 1483 issued an Apostolic 
Constitution (“Grave nimis’’) in which he threat- 
ened to excommunicate all those of either school 
who dared to charge their opponents with heresy. 

The Council of Trent left the question where 
Sixtus [V had put it, but “declared that it is not 
the intention of this holy Synod to include in the 
decree which treats of original sin the blessed 
and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, 
but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, 


50 The festival of the Immaculate the latter half of the sixteenth cen- 
Conception was not raised to the tury,— in 1568, by Pope Pius Vic 
rank of a festival of obligation until 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 63 


of happy memory, are to be observed under the 
pains inflicted by the said constitutions, which it 
[the Tridentine Council] renews.” ** 

In 1567, Pope St. Pius V condemned the prop- 
osition (No. 73) of Baius, that “no one but 
Christ was without original sin, and that there- 
fore the Blessed Virgin died in consequence of the 
sin contracted through Adam, and endured afflic- 
tions in this life, like the rest of the just, as pun- 
ishments for actual and original sin.” °? A year 
later the same Pope made the feast of the Im- 
maculate Conception a holyday of obligation for 
the entire Church. 

Paul V, in 1616, forbade public discussion 
of the subject in pulpit and rostrum, and Gregory 
XV, in 1622, imposed absolute silence on all par- 
ties, with but one exception in favor of the 
Dominicans, who were permitted to debate the 
Immaculate Conception in private. 

Finally, Pope Alexander VII, by the famous 
Constitution “Solicitudo,’ of December 8, 1661, 


51 Sess. V, sub fin.: “ Declarat 
tamen haec ipsa S. Synodus, non 
esse suae intentionis comprehendere 
in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato ort- 
ginali agitur, beatam et immaculatam 
Virginem Mariam, Det genitricem, 
sed observandas esse constitutiones 
felicis recordationis -Sixti Papae IV. 
sub poenis in ets constitutionibus 
contentis, quas innovat.’ On the 
proceedings of the Council with re- 


gard to this question see S. Merkle, 
Concil. Trident., I: Diaria, t. I, pp. 
64 sqq., Friburgi 1901. 

52° Nemo praeter Chrisium est 
absque peccato originali; hinc B. 
Virgo mortua est propter peccatum 
ex Adam contractum omnesque eius 
afflictiones in hac vita, sicut et 
aliorum iustorum, fuerunt ultiones 
peccati actualis vel  originalis.” 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1073.) 


64 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


renewed all the decrees of his predecessors and 
subjected the writings of those who attacked the 
Immaculate Conception to the rules of the Roman 
Tndex.)? 

From this time on the question was ripe for a 
final decision; but it was not until nearly two 
centuries \later; that. Pope Pins IX: formally 
defined and promulgated the dogma of the Im- 
maculate Conception. 

4. THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.—The theo- 
logical argument for the dogma of the Immac- 
ulate Conception rests entirely on reasons of 
fitness, wzg.: (a) due regard for the infinite 
majesty and honor of the Divine Logos, for whose 
sake our Lady was preserved from sin, and (b) 
the exalted dignity of her divine motherhood.°* 

a) The Immaculate Conception constitutes a most ex- 


traordinary personal privilege, which our Lady received 
not for her own sake but for the sake of Christ. As the 


glory of a child reflects honor on his parents, so the shame | 


of a parent brings disgrace upon the child.°> Hence any 
sinful taint in Mary would have reflected unfavorably on 
her Divine Son. Besides, the granting of such an ex- 
traordinary privilege to His mother redounds to the 
glory of Christ in His capacity of Redeemer. Far from 


53 Cfr. B. Plazza, Causa Immac. 
Concept., pp. 390 sqq., Panormi 
1557; Ullathorne, The Immaculate 
Conception (revised ed. by Canon 
Iles), pp. 56 sqq., 151, London 
1905. 

54‘... tum propter Christi prae- 
cipuum honorem, quem decebat de 


purissima matre fierit, tum propter 
Virginis praerogativam, quae debuit 
in dignitate sanctificationis ceteros 
sanctos et sanctas praeire.’ (St. 
Bonaventure, Comment. in Quatuor 
inoros Sent., DEM, dist. 3; p.01, atte 
Te eG uioy) 
Gb.Cir.) Prova oc Villo 6. 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 65 


diminishing, the. Immaculate Conception enhances and 
shows forth His dignity and power. 

A man may be redeemed in a twofold manner, eaher 
by being cleansed from sin or by being preserved from 
it altogether. The latter mode of redemption is un- 
doubtedly the more perfect of the two, for, as Lorinus 
observes, “To prevent one from falling into something 
from which he would have to be rescued, is the nobler 
way of liberation.” ** To hold that Mary was exempt 
from original sin is not to deny that she was redeemed by 
Jesus Christ, but to assert that she was redeemed by Him 
in a most perfect manner, which greatly redounds to the 
glory of the Redeemer. 

b) Our reason shrinks from the thought that she who 
was from all eternity predestined to be the living temple 
of the Logos, the Sanctum Sanctorum of the New Testa- 
ment, should have been even temporarily tainted by orig- 
inal sin. St. Bonaventure holds that the dignity of di- 
vine motherhood raised Mary to a unique rank unat- 
tainable by any other creature. This being the case, 
logic demands that she should be absolutely, pure 
and stainless. Had she ever, even for a single moment, 
been under the yoke that weighs so heavily on the “ chil- 
dren of anger,’ she would not have been always and 
absolutely pure. 

As Deipara Mary undoubtedly surpasses Eve and all 
the angels of Heaven in dignity. Now Eve and the an- 
gels were created in a state of original holiness, hence it 
would not be reasonable to suppose that Mary, whose 
dignity is so far superior to theirs, and who is rightly 
called the ‘“‘ Heavenly Eve” and “ Queen of Angels,” was 
created in the state of original sin.°* 

56 “ Nobilior liberandit modus est debeat liberari.”” (Comment. in Ps., 


impedire, ne quis in id incidat, unde 85, 13.) 
57 But it would be heretical to 


66 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


St. John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother’s 
womb because he was destined to be the precursor of our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Mary must have been 
sanctified from the very beginning of her existence, 
for else she would be on a par with the precursor, which 
is repugnant. 

The opponents of the dogma never denied that the 
Blessed Virgin, on account of her exalted dignity, was 
preserved from personal sin (peccatum actuale) and the 
effects of concupiscence (concupiscentia) all her life.* 
Now, according to St. Augustine, original sin is related 
to actual (or personal) sin as cause to effect. Actual 
or personal sin mostly originates in concupiscence, which 
in its turn is a penalty of original sin.°® Hence the 
absence of one implies absence of the other. Mary 
never committed actual sin, consequently she must have 
been conceived without original sin. 

Again, it is the teaching of the Fathers that Christ was 
exempt from original sin, not only because He was the 
Divine Logos, but also because of His virginal conception 
and birth.°° “ He alone was born without sin,” says St. 
Austin, “whom His virgin mother conceived without the 
embrace of a husband, not by the concupiscence of the 
flesh, but by the submission of her mind.” *' It was meet 
that Christ should confer the immunity to which He 
was entitled as King, at least as a privilege upon His 


b) 


hold, as Petrus Comestor (+ 1179) 
did, that Mary was in every way 
equal to our first parents before the 
fall and consequently stood in no 
need of redemption. This is a 
point of view which throws new 
light on the opposition of so many 
theologians to the doctrine of the 
Immaculate Conception before its 
definition. Cfr. Commer’s Jahrbuch 
fiir Philosophie und _ spekulative 


Theologie, 1905, pp. 483 sqq. 

58 V. infra, Section 2. 

59 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the 
Author of Nature and the Super- 
natural, p. 289. 

60 Op. cit., pp. 281, 286. 

61 “ Solus sine peccato natus est, 
quem sine virili complexu non 
concupiscentia carnis, sed obedien- 
tid mentis virgo concepit.”’ (De 
Pecc. Merit. et Rem., I, n. 57.) 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 67 


Queen, according to the principle laid down by the 
Roman legist Ulpian, that “ A king is not subject to the 
laws, and though his queen is subject to them, the king 
grants her the same privileges which he himself enjoys.” °? 
This explains the deeper meaning of the memorable words 
which King Assuerus spoke to Esther, who was a proto- 
type of the Blessed Virgin Mary: “Fear not, Thou shalt 
not die; for this law is not made for thee, but for all 
othersaa* 


5. THE TEACHING oF St. THomas.—Theo- 
logians are divided in their opinion as to what 
was the mind of St. Thomas in regard to the 
Immaculate Conception. Some %* frankly admit 
that he opposed what in his day was not yet a 
defined dogma, but insist that he virtually ad- 
mitted what he formally denied. Others °° 
claim that the Angelic Doctor expressly defended 
the Immaculate Conception and that the (about 
fifteen) adverse passages quoted from his writ- 
ings must be regarded as later interpolations. 
Between these extremes stand two other groups of 
theologians, one of which °° holds that St. Thomas 
was undecided in his attitude towards the Immac- 
ulate Conception, while the other °* merely main- 
tains the impossibility of proving that he opposed 
the doctrine. 


62“ Princeps legibus subditus non 
est, augusta vero, licet sit subdita, 
princeps tamen eadem privilegia itlli 
concedtt, quae ipse habet.” i 

63 Esth. XV, 12 sq. Cfr. Suarez, 
De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 3, 
sect. 5, where these considerations 
are developed at length. 


64 Scheeben, Schwane, Chr. Pesch, 
Tobbe, Gutberlet. 

65 Velasquez, Sfondrati, Frassen, 
Lambruschini, Palmieri. 

66 To this group belong Malou, 
Tepe, and others. 

67 Prominent in this group are 
Cornoldi, Morgott, Hurter, etc. 


68 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


a) In order to arrive at a just and impartial idea 
of St. Thomas’ position we shall have to study his teach- 
ing in connection with what may be called its theological 
environment. Influenced by the attitude of St. Bernard, 
who was otherwise an ardent devotee of the Blessed 
Virgin, all the predecessors and contemporaries of the 
Angelic Doctor — with the exception perhaps of his fel- 
low Dominican Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1264) — op- 
posed the Immaculate Conception. Of St. Anselm of 
Canterbury, the “ Father of Scholasticism,” it has been 
truly said that, like Aquinas, he virtually asserted the 
Immaculate Conception in his premises and denied it 
formally in his conclusions.®°* It is to Anselm that 
Scholasticism owes the oft-quoted Mariological principle: 
“Tt was meet that the Blessed Virgin should shine in a 
splendor of purity than which none greater can be con- 
ceived under God, that virgin to whom God the Father 
had determined to give His Son, whom He had begotten 
as His equal, and whom He loved like Himself,— and 
He gave Him in such wise that He would be the Son of 
both God the Father and the Virgin.” °° : 

Peter Lombard (d. 1164) taught that “the Blessed 
Virgin bore the taint of original sin, but was entirely 
cleansed before she conceived Christ.”7° This was 
the common teaching in the Franciscan Order. No won- 
der that the most eminent theologians of that Order, 
up to the time of Duns Scotus (d. 1308), battled side 
by side with the Dominicans. Not to mention Alex- 


68 Cfr. Cur Deus Homo? Il, 16. Filius.’ (De Concept. Virg., ©. 
69“ Decens erat, ut ea puritate, 18.) 
qua sub Deo maior nequit intelligt, 70“ Beata Virgo habuit peccatum 
virgo illa niteret, cut Deus Pater originale, sed ante conceptionem 
unicum Filium suum, quem de Christi perfecte  purgata est.” 


corde suo aequalem sibi genitum 
tamquam seipsum diligebat, ita dare 
disponebat, ut unus idemque com- 
munis Dei Patris et Virginis esset 


(Liber Sent., III, dist. 3.) 

71 Among them Albert the Great 
(1193-1280), who was the teacher 
of St. Thomas. 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 69. 


ander of Hales (d. 1245), St. Bonaventure, who was one 
of the greatest lights among the Minorites, while ad- 
mitting that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception 
might be defended as probable on the strength of certain 
considerations of fitness," openly espoused the opposite 
view.” 

b) Placed in a theological environment in which the 
true solution of the problem was not yet attainable, St. 
Thomas, in common with the most eminent and saintly 
doctors of his time, had a perfect right to defend a thesis 
which was by no means regarded as scandalous but open 
to discussion. The dogma of the Immaculate Concep- 
tion was still in process of clarification. 

The Angelic Doctor nowhere expressly teaches the 
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 
the sense in which it has since been defined as an article 
of faith. True, he says with St. Anselm: “ Purity is 
constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it 
is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, 
namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was 
the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from 
original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there 
was in her the potentiality of sin.’"4 But the “ immun- 
ity from original sin” which St. Thomas ascribes to our 


72 Cir. his Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 
9, memb. 2, 


navent., t, III, p. 60, 
Quaracchi_ edition, 


scholion, 


73 He writes: “ Quidam dicere 
voluerunt, in anima gloriosa vir- 
ginis gratiam sanctificationis prae- 
venisse maculam peccati originalis. 
... Aliorum vero positio est, quod 
sanctificatio virginis subsecuta est 
originalis peccati contractionem, et 
hoc quia nullus immunis fuit a 
culpa originalis peccati nist solum 
Filius virginis: hic autem modus 
dicendt communior est et rationa- 
bilior et securior.”’ (Opera S. Bo- 


1887.) 

74“ Puritas intenditur per reces- 
sum @ contrario, et ideo potest ali- 
quid creatum inveniri, quo nihil 
purius esse potest in rebus creatis, 
si nulla contagione peccati inquina- 
tum sit: et talis fuit puritas b. Vir- 
ginis, quae a peccato originali et 
actuali immunis futt, tamen sub 
Deo, inquantum erat in ea potentia 
ad peccandum.” (Comment. in 
Quatuor Libros Sent., I, dist. 44, 
QU.) Ts abt. 13). 


70 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


Lady is not synonymous with “immaculate conception,” 
as can be seen from the third part of the famous Summa 
Theologica, qu. 27, art. 2, ad 2. Consequently, it is not 
fair to charge the Angelic Doctor with inconsistency be- 
cause in numerous other passages, where he treats the 
question ex professo, he denies the doctrine of the Im- 
maculate Conception. He did not hold that God could 
not create a perfectly spotless creature,— his objections 
are mainly based on the privileged character of the Re- 
deemer and the absolute necessity of redemption for 
all human beings without exception. The following pass- 
age from the Summa Theologica shows that its author 
consistently adhered to his standpoint up to the time 
of his death. “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had 
never been defiled by original sin, this would derogate 
from the dignity of Christ as the Redeemer of all man- 
kind. It may be said, therefore, that under Christ, who 
as the universal Saviour needed not to be saved Himself, 
the Blessed Virgin enjoyed the highest measure of purity. 
For Christ in no wise contracted original sin, but was 
holy in His very conception ... The Blessed Virgin, 
however, did contract original sin, but was cleansed there- 
from before her birth.” *° 

This is the uniform teaching of Aquinas in all his 
writings, vig.: that the birth of our Lady was holy and 
immaculate, but not her conception.” 


75“ Si nunquam anima b. Vir- 
ginis fuisset contagio originalis pec- 
cati inquinata, hoc derogaret dignt- 
tati Christi, secundum quam est uni- 
versalis omnium Salvator. Et ideo 
sub Christo, qui salvari non indi- 
guit, tamquam universalis Salvator, 
maxima fuit b. Virginis puritas. 
Nam Christus nullo modo contraxtt 


originale peccatum, sed in ipsa sus 
conceptione fuit sanctus... . Sed 
b. Virgo contraxit quidem originale 
peccatum, sed ab eo fuit mundata 
antequam ex utero masceretur.” 
(Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 27, art. 2, 
ad 2). 

76 Cfr. Comp. Theol., c. 224. 
It is an error that the Domin- 


HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 7 


READINGS : — Besides the general works quoted on pp. 35 sqq., 
supra, the student will find it profitable to consult on the subject 
of the Immaculate Conception the following: Th. Stozzi, Con- 
troversia dell’ Immacolata Concezione, 2 vols., Palermo 1700.— 
B. Plazza, Causa Immaculatae Conceptionis, Panormi 1557.— 
Lambruschini, Sull’ Immacolato Concepimento di Maria, Rome 
1843.—*Ant. Ballerini, Sylloge Monumentorum ad Myst. Imma- 
culatae Conceptionis Spectantium, 2 vols., Rome 1854-6.— * Pas- 
saglia, De Immaculato Conceptu B. Mariae Virginis, 3 vols., 
Rome 1855.—*Malou, De l’Immaculée Conception, 2 vols., Brux- 
elles 1857 Cornoldi, Sententia S. Thomae de Immumitate B. 
Virginis Dei Parentis a Peccati Originalis Labe, and ed., Naples 
1870.— A. Roskovanyi, De B. Virgine Maria in suo Conceptu 
Immaculata ex Monumentis Omnium Saeculorum Declarata, 9 
vols., Neutra 1873-81.—*Palmieri, De Deo Creante et Elevante, 
thes. 82 sqq., Rome 1878—W. Tobbe, Die Stellung des hl. 
Thomas von Aquin zu der unbefleckten Empfangnis, Munster 
1892-—C. M. Schneider, Die unbefleckte Empfingnis und die 
Erbsiinde, Ratisbon 1892—*Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogma- 
ticae, Vol. III, 3d ed., pp. 152 sqq., Freiburg 1908— X. M. Le 
Bachelet, S. J., L’Immaculée Conception, Paris 1904.— L. Kosters, 
S. J., Maria die unbefleckt Empfangene, Ratisbon 1905.— J. B: 
Terrien, S. J., L’Immaculée Conception, Paris 1904.— P. Fried- 
rich, Die Mariologie des hl. Augustinus, Freiburg 1907.— Arch- 
bishop Ullathorne, O. S. B., The Immaculate Conception of the 
Mother of God, Revised by Canon Iles, Westminster 1904.— 
F. G. Holweck, Fasti Mariani, Freiburg 1892.— IpEM, art. “ Im- 
maculate Conception” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VUL.— 
E. Vacandard, “Les Origines de la Féte et du Dogme, de l’Im- 
maculée Conception” in the third volume of the Etudes de 
Critique et de l’Histoire Religieuse, Paris 1912— Jos. Rickaby, 
S. J., “ The Immaculate Conception a Development of Doctrine,” 
in The Lord My Light, pp. 223-230, London 1915.— J. H. New- 
man, “Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception,” in Medita- 
tions and Devotions, London I9gII, pp. 79 sqq. 


ican Order has always, and in al- ception, ed. Iles, pp. 144 sqq. 
most all its distinguished men, been fr. also Pesch, Prael. Dogmat., 
onposed to the pure origin of the Vol. III, 3rd ed. pp. 170 sqq.; 
Blessed Virgin. See Archbishop L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, Vol. 
Ullathorne, The Immaculate Con-. II, pp. 130 sqq. 


SECTION 2 


MARY’S SINLESSNESS 


The Blessed Virgin Mary was free from con- 
cupiscence, which is the source of personal or 
actual sin. It follows that she was absolutely 
sinless, and, in a sense, impeccable. We shall 
make our meaning clear in three theses. 


Thesis I: The Blessed Virgin Mary was through- 
out her life actually exempt from every impulse of 
concupiscence. 


This proposition is theologically certain. 

Proof. The term concupiscence may signify 
either a habit (habitus concupiscentiae, fomes pec- 
catt), or the exercise of that habit (actus concu- 
piscentiae, motus inordinati) 1 


As a habit, concupiscence does not involve a state 
of enmity with God. So long as the will withholds its 
free consent, the first inordinate stirrings (actus primo- 
primi) of concupiscence are not formally sinful and, 
therefore, do not per se involve a moral defect. Ob- 
jectively and materially, however, they run counter to the 
moral law, and the only reason why they are not sinful 
is the absence of free consent, which is a subjective con- 


1Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernat- 
ural, pp. 200 sqq. 


72 


HER SINLESSNESS 73%; 


dition of sin. For this reason St. Paul calls concupis- 
cence sin, and the Council of Trent explains that it “ orig- 
inates in and leads to sin.’? In this sense concupiscence, 
both as a habit and as an act, involves a moral taint, es- 
pecially if the habit be conceived as seeking vent in in- 
ordinate movements. 

Revelation does not tell us whether or not concupis- 
cence existed as a habit in the soul of the Blessed Virgin 
Mary. If it did, it never manifested itself in objectively 
sinful motions, because Our Lady, for the sake of her 
Divine Son, was preserved absolutely pure and immacu- 
late. This is Catholic teaching which has at all times 
been so generally acknowledged that the opponents of the 
Immaculate Conception never ventured to attack it. 


a) The Protevangelium ® and the Angelic Sal- 
utation * furnish no stringent proof for our thesis, 
because concupiscence does not necessarily entail 
enmity with God. The argument rests mainly on 
Christian Tradition, which, since about the fifth 
century, so consistently developed the idea of 
Mary’s absolute sinlessness that it became an 
axiom with the Scholastics that “the Mother of 
God must have been endowed with a purity in- 
ferior only to that of God Himself and His 
Christ.”® Now, though concupiscence is called 
sin only in a figurative sense, its indeliberate stir- 
rings, as we have said, involve a moral taint, 
which cannot be harmonized with the notion of ab- 


2“... quia ex peccato est et ad 4Luke I, 28. 
peccatuwm inclinat.”? (Sess. V,- can. 5 “ Mater Det eG puritate nitere 
5; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 792.) _ debuit, qué sub Deo vel Christo 


3 Gen, III, 15. maior nequit intelligi.” 


74 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


solute purity. Consequently, the Blessed Virgin 
Mary, as the pure Mother of God, must have been 
entirely exempt from concupiscence. 


a) Some of the traditional witnesses give explicit ut- 
terance to this conclusion. Thus Hesychius of Jerusalem 
refers to our Lady as “ she whom the odor of concupis- 
cence hath not touched, nor the worm of pleasure 
harmed.” ® St. John of Damascus greets her as a “ holy 
book, imperviable to evil thoughts.”* Other Patristic 
writers exalt her purity above that of the angels, and thus 
virtually declare her immune both from original sin and 
concupiscence. Thus we read in the works of St. Ephrem 
Syrus: “ Mother of God... all-pure, all-immaculate, 
all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-blameless, all-worthy of 
praise, all-incorrupt;. .. after the Trinity, mistress of 
all: after the Paraclete, another consoler; and after the 
Mediator, the whole world’s mediatrix; higher beyond 
compare than Cherubim and Seraphim, .. . fulness of 
the graces of the Trinity, holding the second place after 
the Godhead.” § 


B) The theological argument rests partly on 
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception,” and 
partly on that of our Lady’s perpetual virginity.” 


6 Hom. in Deipar., I (Migne, P. 
G., XCIII, 1466). 

7 Orat. in Deip. Nativ., 2, n. 7. 

8 Opera Gr. .) Lat. III, ~ 528: 
“ Tota casta, tota immaculata, tota 
illibata, tota intemerata, tota in- 
contaminata, tota celebranda, tota 
incorrupta.... Post SS. Trinita- 
tem omnium Domina, post Paracle- 
tum altera consolatrix, et post Me- 
diatorem mediatrix totius mundi, 


sine comparatione superior et glort- 
osior Cherubim et Seraphim.... 
Plenitudo gratiarum Trinitatis, se- 
cundas post divinitatem partes fe- 
rens.’ For a more detailed state- 
ment of the Patristic argument in 
favor of our thesis consult Palmieri, 
De Deo Creante et Elevante, thes. 
90, Rome 1878. 

9 Supra, Section 1. 

10 Infra, Section 3. 


HER SINLESSNESS 76 


Neither of these prerogatives could coexist with con- 
cupiscence, which is an effect and a remnant of original 
sin and utterly repugnant to the high ideal of virginity 
which the Christian Church has always admired in our 
Lady.*? 

But if she was exempt from concupiscence, how could 
she perform meritorious acts? The answer is easy: by 
the conscientious practice of humility, obedience, mortifi- 
cation, and other virtues. 


b) Theologians at one time disputed the ques- 
tion whether concupiscence (fomes peccati) was 
merely checked (ligatus) or entirely extinct (e4- 
tinctus) in the Blessed Virgin. Now that her 
Immaculate Conception is an article of faith, this 
question can be decided by simply saying that con- 
cupiscence did not exist at all in our Blessed 
Mother. Being a penalty of sin, concupiscence 
cannot have dwelled in a soul which was never 
even for an instant defiled by iniquity. 


Following the lead of St. Thomas, most older theolo- 
gians divide the earthly life of our Lady into two peri- 
ods and hold that during the first period concupiscence 
lay dormant in her soul,'* while during the second, it was 
totally extinct.* This distinction can be defended only 


11 Virgo purissima, perfectissima, 
unica. 

12 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Au- 
thor of Nature and the Supernat- 
ural, p. 289. 

13 They call this 
consopitio. 

14 Extinctio, sublatio. Cfr. Summa 
Theol., 3a, qu. 27, art. 3: 
lius videtur dicendum, 


state ligatio, 


quod per 


“ Me- 


sanctificationem in utero non fuerit 
sublatus b. Virginit fomes secundum 
essentiam, sed remanserit ligatus. 
. . - Postmodum vero in ipsa con- 
ceptione carnis Christi, in qua primo 
debuit refulgere peccati immunitas, 
credendum est quod ex prole re- 
dundaverit in matrem,  totaliter 
fomite sublato.” 


76 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


on the assumption that our Lady’s so-called first sanctifi- 
cation consisted in her being cleansed from original sin in 
her mother’s womb, rather than in her being entirely pre- 
served from it. The definition of the dogma constrains 
us to believe, both on theological and philosophical 
grounds, that the habit of concupiscence was radically de- 
stroyed in the soul of our Lady by virtue of her Immacu- 
late Conception. This is really the only consistent view to 
take. It was espoused by some of the earliest defenders 
of the dogma, e. g., Duns Scotus and Gabriel Biel. The 
objection that so sublime a prerogative would exalt the 
Mother at the expense of her Divine Son, was refuted 
by Suarez, who showed that, rightly understood, the doc- 
trine of the Immaculate Conception tends rather to en- 
hance than to diminish the glory of Christ.*° 

The foregoing considerations enable us to form a 
solid opinion with regard to the question whether or not 
the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin may be described 
as a state of original justice analogous to that of our 
first parents in Paradise. The answer depends on how 
we define the term iustitia originalis. If we take it to 
mean the totality of those supernatural and preter- 
natural prerogatives which our first parents enjoyed in 
the Garden, then Mary was not conceived and born in the 
state of original justice, because, unlike Adam and Eve, 
she was subject to death and suffering and in need of 
being redeemed. But if we define iustitia originalis as 
perfect sanctity and sinlessness, we can and must say 
that the state of original justice was more fully realized 
in Mary than in Adam and Eve. 


15 Suarez, De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 4, sect. 5, NM. II. 


HER SINLESSNESS "7 


Thesis II: The Blessed Virgin Mary was by a 
special divine privilege actually exempt from personal 
sin. 

This thesis embodies an article of faith. 

root... he: Councilor. renty:declaress1y Lh, 
any one assert that man, after he is once justified, 
is able to avoid throughout his lifetime all, even 
venial sin, except by a special divine privilege, as 
the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, 
let him be anathema.” *° 

Hence it is an article of faith that Mary, in 
contradistinction to all other human beings, was 
by a special privilege preserved from venial as 
well as mortal sin throughout her lifetime. 

It should, however, be noted that this dogma 
merely asserts the fact of Mary’s sinlessness, 
but does not say that it is based on impeccability.** 

a) That the Blessed Virgin Mary was pre- 
served from sin may be inferred (1) from the 
Scriptural and Patristic teaching that she en- 
joyed the fulness of grace,** and (2) from the fact 
that her purity surpassed that of the angels. 
The argument is strengthened by a consideration 
of her intimate union with Christ, the ‘‘second 
Adam,” and her own antithetical relation to the 
Hurst Eve,” 


16 Sess.. VI, can. 23: .“ Sz quis dum de b. Virgine tenet Ecclesia, 
hominem semel iustificatum  di- anathema  sit.”” (Denzinger-Bann- 
werit. . « » posse in tota vita peccata wart, n. 833.) 
omnia, etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex 17 Cfr. Thesis III, infra. 
Special Det privilegio, quemadmo- 18V. supra, pp. 24 sqq 


78 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


Mary was incapable of committing mortal sin for the 
reason that God had put absolute and permanent enmity 
between her and the devil, which fact is incompatibie with 
original, and a fortiori with mortal, sin.® She could not 
even commit venial sin; for though venial sin does not 
destroy the bond of friendship with God, it involves a 
positive moral defect which we can not attribute to the 
Blessed Virgin Mary without running counter to the 
traditional conception of her absolute sinlessness.?° If 
Mary were not absolutely stainless, the Church could not 
exhort us to address her in the terms of the Canticle of 
Canticles: ‘“ Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is 
nota spot an ‘thee. 


b) As regards Tradition, the dogma of the 
sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin, unlike that of 
her Immaculate Conception, did not undergo 
a process of clarification, but existed from the 
beginning in the fully developed form in which it 
has come down tous. “We must except the Holy 
Virgin Mary,” says St. Augustine, “concerning 
whom I wish to raise no question, when it touches 
the subject of sin, out of honor to the Lord.” ” 
In other words, the Blessed Virgin Mary was 
without sin because the honor of her Divine Son 
demanded it. 


This quotation from St. Augustine fairly represents 
the belief of Western Christendom. Strange to say, the 


19V. supra, pp. 43 saq.- Mariad, de qua propter honorem 
20 Cfr. Al. Schaefer, Die Gottes- Domini nullam prorsus, quum de 
mutter in der Hl. Schrift, p. 116. peccato agitur, haberi volo quae- 
(Engl. tr., pp. 123 sqq.) stionem.” (De Nat. et Grat., c. 36, 
21 Canticle of Canticles IV, 7. Nn. 42.) 


22“ Exceptaé itaque S. Virgine 


HER SINLESSNESS 29 


dogma of the personal sinlessness of our Lady suffered 
temporary obscuration in the East, where the Immacu- 
late Conception was so tenaciously professed. St. Chrys- 
ostom holds that the petition which Mary addressed to her 
Son at the marriage feast of Cana was prompted by fem- 
inine vanity and her desire to speak to Jesus when He was 
preaching to the multitudes,?? by imperiousness.** St. 
basil aand ) St. Cyril’ of (Alexandria **\\interpret the 
prophecy of Simeon as implying that a doubt in the Divin- 
ity of Jesus would enter the heart of Mary under the 
Cross. Petavius boldly censures these opinions as “ pre- 
posterous.” 27. However, the fact that they were held by 
such eminent authorities proves that during the first 
four centuries the dogma of the personal sinlessness of 
our Lady was not so generally believed in the East as 
in the West, where SS. Ambrose and Augustine 
proclaimed and defended it. The attitude of the Greek 
Fathers may perhaps be explained by the fact that they 
were imbued with the Oriental notion that woman is in- 
ferior to man and subject to certain frailties and defects 
which are not strictly speaking faults. In judging their 
attitude, therefore, it will be well to distinguish between 
an accidental popular notion and the tradition of the faith. 
The Madgeburg Centuriators were certainly not justified 
in appealing to the Fathers in their endeavor to represent 
Mary as a sinful woman, for St. Andrew of Crete and 
St. John of Damascus, and long before either St. Ephrem 
Syrus, faithfully voiced the true ecclesiastical belief.?° 


283 Matth. XII, 46 sqqa. Det matre ss. Virgine, quae nemo 

24 Chrys., Hom. in Ioa., 21 (al. prudens laudare possit.”’ (De In- 
22); Hom. in Matth., 44, n. 1. carn., XIV, 1.) 

25 Ep. 259 ad Optim. 28 Cfr. H. Hurter, Comp. Theol. 

26 In Ioa., 19, 25. Dogm., > Vol.\ LL, .\ thesiy\' 1645". St. 

27“ Haec trium summorum-~viro- Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 27, 


rum praepostera sunt iudicia de art. 4. 


85  MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


Thesis III: The proximate cause of our Lady’s 
sinlessness was a kind of impeccability ; its remote and 
ultimate cause was the grace of Divine Motherhood. 


We are now dealing with a merely probable 
theological opinion. 5 

Proof. Sinlessness (impeccantia) is actual 
freedom from sin; impeccability (ampeccabilitas), 
absolute inability to sin. The former does not 
necessarily imply the latter, because God could 
preserve a human being from sin by simply with- 
holding his physical concurrence. In the case of 
our Lady, however, we are justified in assuming 
that her purity was due to a kind of intrinsic im- 
peccability. 


Impeccability may be either metaphysical or moral. 
Metaphysical impeccability belongs exclusively to God, 
whereas moral impeccability may also be enjoyed by crea- 
tures. It is enjoyed, e. g., by the angels and saints in 
Heaven. God is impeccable because He is absolutely and 
infinitely holy ; 2° Christ, in consequence of the Hypostatic 
Union; ®° the angels and saints, by virtue of the beatific 
vision of the Godhead which they enjoy.*t How are we 
to conceive the impeccability of the Blessed Virgin 
Mary? It is quite obvious that her impeccability must 
differ specifically from that proper to God and the God- 
man Jesus Christ. Hers is not a divine attribute, nor is it 
conditioned by or based upon a personal union of divinity 


29 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 30 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
Knowability, Essence, and Attri- pp. 207 sqq. 
butes, 2nd ed., pp. 251 sqq., St. 31 This subject will be treated in 


Louis 1914. Eschatology. 


HER SINLESSNESS S11: 


with humanity. It cannot be a result of the beatific 
vision, because Mary during her sojourn on earth was a 
wayfarer like ourselves and did not enjoy beatitude.® 
Comparing her impeccability to that of the angels and 
saints and to that of our first parents in Paradise, we may 
define it as an intermediate state between the two. It 
would be asserting too much to say that the Blessed Virgin 
was capable of committing sin like our first parents; and 
too little to assert that during her life-time she was in- 
capable of sinning as the angels and saints of Heaven 
are now, in consequence of the beatific vision. In what, 
then, did her impeccability consist? We are probably 
not far from the truth when we assume that God gave 
her the gift of perfect perseverance** as against 
mortal sin, and that of confirmation in grace ** as against 
venial sin. Together with her freedom from concupis- 
cence these two graces may be regarded as the proximate 
cause of Mary’s impeccability. For its ultimate cause we 
must go back to the higher and more comprehensive pre- 
rogative of her divine motherhood.** God owed it to 
His own dignity and holiness, so to speak, to bestow the 
grace of perfect perseverance and confirmation in grace 
upon her from whom His Divine Son was to assume 
human nature. This idea is aptly illustrated by “the 
woman clothed with the sun” whom St. John visioned 
in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. The analogy 
between Mary’s impeccability and that of her Divine 
Son would seem to render this theory all the more ac- 
ceptable, though we must, of course, never forget that 
the impeccability of Christ is based upon the Hypostatic 


32 V. supra, p. 31. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 
33 Donum perfectae perseveran- 221 sq. 
tiae. 35 Gratia maternitatis divinae. V. 


34 Donum confirmationis in gratia, supra, pp. 4 Sqq. 


82 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


Union of Godhead and manhood, whereas that of His 
Mother rests merely upon the grace of divine mother- 
hood.*° 


READINGS: —*St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 27, art. 4, and 
the commentators.— *Suarez, De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 4, 
sect. 3-6.— Vasquez, Comment. in S. Th., disp. 11&— Petavius, 
De Incarnatione, XIV, 1 sqq— Albertus Magnus, Mariale, qu. 
133 sqq., Lugduni 1651.— Christopher Vega, Theologia Mariana, 
palaestr. VII, cert. 4; IX, 1, Lugduni 1653.—*Scheeben, Dog- 
matik, Vol. III, § 280, Freiburg 1882— Tepe, Institutiones The- 
ologicae, Vol. III, pp. 708 sqq., Paris 1896.—J. Bucceroni, Com- 
mentarit de SS. Corde Iesu, de B. Virgine Maria et de S. 
Tosepho, ed. 4, pp. 81 sqq., Rome 1806. 


36 Cfr. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. III, § 280. 


SECTION 3 


MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 


The most beautiful jewel in the crown of Our 
Lady, aside from her immaculate conception, is 
her perpetual virginity. 

Virginity, in the sense of internal purity, is in- 
cluded in the concept of sinlessness, with which 
we have dealt in the preceding Section. Here we 
are concerned only with external or bodily vir- 
ginity (virgimitas carnis), and, employing the 
term in this meaning, we affirm that Mary was an 
inviolate virgin before, during, and after the birth 
of her Divine Son. 


Thesis I: Mary was a pure virgin before the birth 
of Christ. 


This thesis embodies an article of faith. 

Proof. The period here under consideration 
comprises the whole previous life of Our Lady up 
to the Annunciation, and particularly the mo- 
ment when she conceived her Divine Son. The 
dogma embodied in our thesis was impugned 
by the ancient sects of the Ebionites and Cerin- 
thians, by the Jews,’ the Socinians, and many 


1 Cfr. the Sanhedrin and the Toledoth Jeschuah. 
83 


84 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


modern Rationalists, e. g., Wegscheider, De 
Wette, Strauss, Renan, Paulus, Venturini, etc. 
It is contained in the so-called Apostles’ Creed: 
“TJesus Christ] was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,” ? and has been 
echoed by many councils.® 

a) That Mary was a virgin up to the time 
when the Angel announced to her the mystery 
of the Incarnation, is plain from Luke I, 26 sq.: 
‘2. the Angel Gabriel was sent from God,. ... 
to a virgin* espoused to a man whose name 
was Joseph, of the house of David, and the 
virgin’s name was Mary.’ Her virginity was 
not violated when she conceived our Lord Jesus 
Christ.) Luke 1)r3ag:). “The Holy,;Ghost shall 
come upon thee, and the power of the most High 
shall overshadow thee.” Cfr. Matth.1I,18: “As 
his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before 
they came together ° she was found with child, of 
the Holy Ghost.” ® Conceived of the Holy Ghost, 
without the codperation of a human male, Christ 
was not the son of Joseph, but merely supposed to 
be such.’ In explanation of the unique miracle 
of the virgin birth, St. Matthew ® refers to a fa- 
mous Old Testament prophecy: °® ‘Now all this 


2“ Conceptus est de  Spiritu 6 etpén ev yaorpt éxovoa ék 
Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine.” mvevPartos darylov- 
3 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. T Dake DLA 23: 
TAA, | 250, 16tC. 8 Matth. I, 22 sq. 
4 Virgo, wap0évos. 9Is. VII, 14: “Ecce virgo con- 
5 mpiv 7 aouvveNGeiv avrovs. cipiet et’ pariet fiium et vocabitur 


nomen eius Emmanuel.” 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY: 85 > 


was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord 
spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin 
shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they 
shall call his name Emmanuel, which being inter- 
pretedis, God with us.” 


Christian Tradition has always taken this passage to 
refer to the conception and birth of the Messias, because 
to none other can the name Emmanuel be fitly applied. 
We know as the result of a complete induction *° that 
the Hebrew word mop hardly ever means simply “girl ” 


‘ 


(puella, veavs), but almost without exception “ virgin,” 
in the proper sense of that term (wirgo, map6évos) .** 
The phrase “a virgin shall be with child” must there- 
fore be taken in sensu composito, that is, as denoting 
virginal conception without male cooperation. There 
would be nothing extraordinary in the prophecy of 
Isaias if it were interpreted in sensu diviso, 1. é@., as 
meaning that the virgin who was to be with child was to 
be a virgin only till the time of her conception, but not 
theteaiter,+* 


b) The Fathers are unanimous in teaching 
that Christ was conceived by a virgin and that 
the prophecy of Isaias applies to Him. 


St. Justin Martyr, for example, says: “The words 
‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child’ mean that the vir- 


TORG Et OL Vig sh eexop cL Le) 8's planation of Is. VII, 14 consult 
Ps, LXVIII, 26; Cant. I, 3; VI, 8; Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter in 
Prov. XXX, 18 sq. der Hl. Schrift, pp. 22 sqq. (Engl. 

11 St. Ireneus was probably the tr., pp. 28 sqq.); Knabenbauer, 
first to call attention to this dis- Comment. in Is., VII, 14, . Paris 
tinction.. (Adv. Haer., III,,. 21; 1887; Maas, Christ in Type and 
cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V, 8). Prophecy, Vol. I, pps 351° -saqa., 

12 For a detailed exegetical ex- New York 1893. 


86 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


gin shall conceive without fleshly commerce. For had 
she admitted such commerce, she would no longer be a 
virgin. But the power of God effected that she conceived 
as a virgin.” + 

An ancient image of our Lady in the catacombs (per- 
haps the oldest that has come down to us from 
early Christian times) ** shows the prophet Isaias clothed 
in a pallium, wearing sandals on his feet, and pointing 
with his right hand to a scroll in his left. At his right isa 
picture of the Madonna, in sitting posture, with stole and 
a short veil, holding the infant Jesus in her arms. The 
whole group is surmounted by an eight-cornered star.” 

Several of the Fathers illustrate the miraculous concep- 
tion of our Lord by saying that Mary conceived Him 
through “ faith.” “It behooved a virgin to bring forth 
Him who was conceived by His mother’s faith, not by 
her lust,” says St. Augustine.1* Other Patristic writers 
develop the beautiful thought that the virginity of Mary, 
far from being violated, was sealed and consecrated by 
the conception of her Divine Son. The reasons which 
St. Thomas *” gives why it was fit that Christ should be 
conceived by a virgin, may, at least in part, be traced to 
the writings of the Fathers. They are the following: 
(1) It was meet that the Heavenly Father should 
be the sole progenitor of His Divine Son; (2) It was in 
accord with the purity of Christ’s eternal yéwyo.s in the 
bosom of the Father that His temporal generation also 
should be absolutely chaste and holy; (3) It behooved 


13 Apol., I. 

14,This image was discovered in 
the Roman catacomb of St. Pris- 
cilla, A. D. 1851, and probably dates 
back to the end of the first or the 
beginning of the second century. 

15 Cfr. C. M. Kaufmann, Hand- 
buch der christlichen Archdologie, 


p. 362, Paderborn 1905; Scaglia-Na- 
gengast, The Catacombs of Saint 
Callistus, p. 67, Rome tort. 

16 Enchiridion, n. 34: “De vir- 
gine nasci oportebat, quem fides 
matris, non libido conceperat.”’ 

17 Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 28, 
art. I. 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 87 


the sacred humanity of our Lord to be exempt from the 
taint of original sin; and (4) The virginal conception of 
Christ was highly appropriate in view of the chief pur- 
pose of the Incarnation, which was the regeneration of 
the human race “ not of the will of the flesh, nor of the 
will of man, but of God.” 78 


c) From the theological point of view we may 
adduce the subjoined considerations. 

Though the Blessed Virgin conceived her Di- 
vine Son without detriment to her virginity, she 
was the true spouse of St. Joseph. 


St. Matthew ’° tells us that Joseph was not merely the 
fiancé, but the husband of Our Lady. “ Jacob begot 
Joseph, the husband of Mary,”?° of whom was born Jesus, 
who is called Christ.” Mark well, the Evangelist does 
not say: “Joseph begot Jesus.” ?1 Though his mar- 
riage with the Blessed Virgin was never consummated, 
St. Joseph was truly “the husband of Mary,” and conse- 
quently the adoptive and legal father of Jesus. As 
such he enjoyed all the rights and prerogatives of a 
true father, e. g., that of naming the child. Cfr. Matth. 
I, 20, sq.: “ Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to 
him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not 
to take unto thee Mary thy wife,?? for that which is con- 
ceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost; and she shall bring 
forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he 
shall save his people from their sins.” ?* This text fur- 
nishes a key which unlocks for us the deeper meaning 


18 Cfr. John I, 13. 22 Coniugem tuam, thy ryuvaike 

19 Matth. I, 16. cov. 

20Virum Mariae, Trop dvdpa 2eCir,)  -Matth. | 1.\) sexo hee as. 
Mapilas. hizo, sad. 


21V. supra, p. 6. 


88 MARYS) SF eCiAL IPREROGATIVES 


of such passages’ as,,Luke [1 33°'"" His: father ** and 
mother were wondering at those things which were 
spoken concerning him; ” and Luke II, 48: “ His mother 
said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold, 
thy father *> and I have sought thee sorrowing.” St. 
Augustine lays special emphasis on this point. ‘ Jo- 
seph,” he says, “is said to be the father of Christ in the 
same way in which he is understood to be the husband of 
Mary, without carnal intercourse, by the connexion of 
marriage, that is to say, far more intimately than if he 
had been adopted in some other way.” 7° 

In 1892 Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis and her twin sister 
Mrs. Margaret Dunlop Gibson discovered in the monas- 
tery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai a palimpsest manu- 
script of the fourth or fifth century which lacks only about 
eight pages of the four Gospels. Professor Gregory 7" 
believes it to be “essentially the earliest Syriac text.” 
This text renders Matth. I, 16, thus: “ Joseph, to whom 
was espoused Mary the virgin, begot Jesus, who is called 
the Messias.” Of course we do not know whether the 
Syriac translator rendered his Hebrew or Greek original 
faithfully ; but even if he did, the passage need not neces- 
sarily be explained as contradicting the virginal con- 
ception of Our Lord. The term “begot” may be taken 
in a wider sense as supplying the basis for a legal pa- 
ternity.?® 


24 Pater etus. 

25 Pater tuus. 

26 De Consensu Evangel., II, 1: 
“Eo modo pater Christi dicitur 
Loseph, quo et vir Mariae intelligi- 
tur sine commixtione carnis, ipsa 
copulatione coniugu, multo videlicet 


coniunctius quam si esset aliunde - 


adoptatus.”” 


27C. R. Gregory, Canon and 


Text of the New Testament, p. 398, 
New York 1907; cfr. Holzhey, Der 


neuentdeckte Syrus Sinaiticus, Min- 


chen 1896. Holzhey’s work con- 
tains a thorough examination of the 
Lewis codex, as well as a compari- 
son of it with Cureton’s text. 

28 Cfr. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter 
sn der Hl, Schrift; p. 21, note 3, 
(Engl. tr., p. 27, n. 6); M. Seisen- 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 89. 


That the Holy Ghost is no more the natural father 
of Jesus than is St. Joseph, was expressly defined 
by the Eleventh Council of Toledo (A. D. 675).?? The 
intrinsic metaphysical reason is this: divine generation 
can manifest itself outwardly only as generatio aequi- 
voca (as, for instance, in the process of supernatural 
regeneration), whereas every true generation is a ge 
neratio univoca, aiming at the production of a being con- 
substantial with its progenitor. Such is, e. g., the eternal 
generation of the Son by the Father; such, too, is all 
organic generation on earth. The part which the Third 
Person took in the conception of our Divine Saviour was 
of the nature of a divine appropriation and consisted in 
supernaturally supplying the missing male principle and 
furnishing the impetus necessary for the development of 
the embryo conceived in the virgin’s womb. *° 

The great dignity of St. Joseph, which renders him 
particularly worthy of our veneration, is based on the 
unique privilege which he enjoyed, of being both the legal 
father of our Lord and the true husband of His Blessed 
Mother. Needless to say, he was a just and holy man.** 
Very properly do the faithful link his name with the 
sacred names of Jesus and Mary, and place themselves 
berger, Practical Handbook for the 30Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa 
Study of the Bible, tr. by A. M. PLeols Ma aw Gin s2eacteny ound cama: 
Buchanan, pp. 245 sq., New York “ Christus conceptus est de Maria 
IQII. Virgine materiam ministrante in 


29“ Nov& autem nativitate est similitudinem speciet, et ideo dici- 
genitus, quia intacta virginitas et tur Filius eius. Christus autem se- 


virtlem coitum nescivit et foecun- cundum quod homo conceptus est 
data per Spiritum Sanctum carnts de Spiritu Sancto sicut de activo 
materiam ministravit.... Nec ta- principio, non tamen ~ secundum 
men Spiritus Sanctus pater esse cre- similitudinem speciet, sicut homo 


dendus est Filii, pro eo quod Maria nascitur de patre suo, et ideo 
eodem Sancto Spiritu. obumbrante Christus non dicitur filius Spiritus 
concepit, ne duos patres Filuvidea- Sancti.” 

mur asserere, quod utique nefas est 31 6/kavos wy. Matth. I, 19, 
dici.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, nn, 

282.) 


go MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


under the special protection of the Holy Family, which 
presents such a perfect model of all virtues. One hun- 
dred and fifty-three of the Fathers assembled for the 
Vatican, Council petitioned the Holy See to declare St. 
Joseph patron of the Universal Church.*? This wish was 
gratified by Pius IX,°* and the patronage of St. Joseph 
was reaffirmed and his cult recommended by Leo XIII.** 


Thesis II: The Blessed Virgin Mary remained an 
inviolate virgin during parturition. 

This is likewise an article of faith. 

Proof. The virginal conception of Our Lord 
offers less difficulty to the human mind than 
His virgin birth, for the reason that maternity 
necessarily presupposes parturition. It is owing 
to this difficulty that Mary’s wirgimitas im partu 
has become a dogma logically distinct from her 
virginitas im conceptione. Its chief opponent 
in ancient times was the infamous Jovinian, a 
heretic of the fourth century.*° The fourteenth- 


32 Cfr. C. Martin, Conc. Vat. Do- 
cum. Collectio, p. 214, Paderborn 
1873. 

83 Decree of Dec. 8, 1870. 

84 Encyclical Letter ‘‘ Quamquam 
pluries,’ of August 15, 1889. On 
the dogmatic aspects of the part 
taken by St. Joseph in the economy 
of the Redemption cfr. Jamar, The- 
ologia S. Losephi, Louvain 1898. 
On. the historic development of the 
devotion to the foster-father of our 
Lord, see J. Seitz, Die Verehrung 
des hi. Joseph in threr geschicht- 
lichen Entwicklung bis zum Konzil 
von Trient, Freiburg 1908; Kellner, 
Heortology, pp. 272 sqq., London 


1908; Ricard, S. Joseph, sa Vie et 
son Culte, Lille 1896; C. L. Souvay, 
art. ‘Joseph, Saint” in the Catho- 
lic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII. On the 
history of the dogma of Christ’s vir- 
gin birth cfr. Durand-Bruneau, The 
Childhood of Jesus Christ according 
to the Canonical Gospels, pp. 45 
sqq., Philadelphia 1910. 

35 Our information about Jovinian 
is principally derived from St. 
Jerome’s two books, Adversus Jo- 
vinianum. Cfr. Haller, Jovinianus, 
die Fragmente seiner Schriften, die 
Quellen zu seiner Geschichte, sein 
Leben und seine Lehre, Leipzig 
1897. 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY Qt 


century Lollards likewise held that the Blessed 
Virgin gave birth to her Son just as any ordi- 
nary mother. Modern Rationalists and infidel 
Bible critics quite naturally have nothing but 
scorn for the dogma of the virgin birth. 
Jovinian was condemned as a heretic by Pope 
Siricius at a council held in Rome, A. D. 390. 
The bishops of Italy and Gaul convoked in Milan 
by St. Ambrose solemnly declared: “Perversely 
they assert that she [Mary] conceived as a virgin 
but was no longer a virgin when she brought 
forth [her Son] . .. But if men will not believe 
the teaching of the priests, let them believe the 
pronouncements of Christ, let them believe the 
Apostles’ Creed [‘He was born of the Virgin 
Mary’], which the Church has always guarded 
and continues to preserve.” *° 

a) The Gospel narrative of the birth of our 
Divine Saviour contains nothing either to prove 
or to disprove His virgin birth.*” However, the 
dogma has sufficient Scriptural warrant in the 
prophecy of Isaias. In the sentence: ‘Behold, 
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,” *® the 
consequent (“a virgin will bear a son’”’), like the 
antecedent (“‘a virgin will conceive”), must mani- 


86“ De via perversitatis produn-  virgine], quod ecclesia Romana in- 
tur dicere: Virgo concepit, sed non temeraium semper custodivit et 
virgo generavit.... Sed si doc- servat.” 
trinis non creditur sacerdotum, ~cre- 87 Cfr. Luke II, 5 sqq. 
datur oraculis Christi, credatur sym-: 88Is, VII, 14: ‘“‘ Ecce virgo con- 


bolo penne [scil. naius de Maria  cipiet et pariet Filiwm,” 


92  MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


festly be taken in sensu composito.? In other 
words, “a virgin will bear a son” means that she 
will remain a virgin though bearing a son.*? A 
passage in Ezechiel is interpreted as referring 
typically to the virgin birth. “And the Lord 
said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not 
be opened, and no man shall pass through it: 
because the Lord God of Israel hath entered 
{DY ME Nee dire 


An apparent difficulty arises from the Scriptural ac- 
count of the Presentation. Luke II, 22 sq.: “After the 
days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, 
were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem to pre- 
sent him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the 
Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy 
to the Lord.” 42. The sacred writer here seems to put 
Mary on a level with ordinary mothers. But in matter 
of fact he merely cites a provision of the Mosaic law, to 
which the Mother of God conformed in all humility and 
obedience, despite the fact that the physiological suppo- 
sitions did not exist in her case. We must remember 
that the law of Moses was made for the common run of 
humanity, not for the exceptional few. We must also 
note that the presentation of the Christ-child in the Tem- 


39 See Thesis I, supra. 

40 “ Mater inviolata’’ (Litany of 
Loreto). 

41 Ezech. XLIV, 2: “ Porta haec 
clausa erit, non aperietur et vir non 
transibit per eam, quoniam Dominus 
Deus Israel ingressus est per eam.” 
On the traditional exegesis of this 
text cfr. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter, 
pp. 56 sqq. (Engl. tr., pp. 63 sqq.) 


42 Et postquam impleti sunt dies 
purgationis eius (at Huepar TOU 
Kadapiopov) secundum legem 
Moysi, tulerunt illum in Ierusalem, 
ut sisterent eum Domino, sicut 
scriptum est in lege Domini: Quia 
omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam 
(Suavoiyor pntpav) sanctum Do- 
mina vocabitur.” 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 93 


ple is accounted for, not by the apertio vulvae et purgatio 
sanguinis, but by the Mosaic requirement that every first- 
born infant should be consecrated to the Lord. As Jesus 
was the first-born son of His virgin mother, He had to be 
presented in the Temple and consecrated to God according 
to the law.** 


b) Tradition unmistakably attests Mary’s 
virgimitas in partu, in fact there is not a single 
Father who can be said to be uncertain in his at- 
titude towards this question. 


a) The nineteenth among the “ Odes and Psalms of 
Solomon,” lately rediscovered by Rendel Harris,** ex- 
presses belief in the virgin birth. As these Odes in their 
present form are probably the work of a Jewish-Chris- 
tian who lived about A.D. 70, the passage to which 
we refer may be regarded as the most ancient extra- 
biblical testimony to the dogma of the wrginitas in partu. 
It reads as follows: ‘‘ The Virgin’s body sprouted and 
she conceived and gave birth without pain to a Son; and 
by the fact that He became nought [humbled Himself] 
she received aplenty [became rich] and she asked not 
for a midwife; for He made her to live.” * St. Am- 
brose declares: “ The prophet Ezechiel *® says that he 
saw the building of a city upon a very high mountain. 
The’city had many gates. Of these one is described as 
shut. What is this gate but Mary? And shut because a 
virgin. Mary, then, is the gate through which Christ 

43 Cfr. proposition number 24 tione et quod Filius (qui offereba- 
among the Propositiones damnatae tur) etiam maculé matris maculatus 
ab Alexandro VIII, d. 7. Dec. 1690 esset, secundum verba legis.” 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, mn. 1314): 44 Published at Cambridge, 1909. 


* Oblatio in templo.... sufficienter 45 Odes of Solomon, verses 6-8. 
testatur, quod indiguerit purtfica- 46 Ezech, XLIV, 2, 


94 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 

came into this world, when he was shed forth by a vir- 
ginal birth, without loosing the bars of virginity. The 
inclosure of purity remained unscathed, and the seals of 
integrity were kept inviolate, as He went forth from the 
virgin. ... A good gate is Mary, that was closed, and 
was not opened. By her Christ passed, but He opened 
not.” 47 St. Augustine thus descants on the miraculous 
character of this supernatural process: “The same 
power evolved the body of the infant from the virginal 
viscera of the inviolate mother, which afterwards con- 
ducted the body of the grown-up youth through locked 
doors. If we ask for the reason, it is not miraculous; 
if we demand an example, it is not singular. Let us 
grant that God can do something which we may as well 
admit we cannot fathom. In such matters the sole 
reason for a fact is the power of Him who causes it.” 48 
We will conclude the argument by a quotation from Pope 
Hormisdas (514-523): “The child by the power of 
God did not open his mother’s womb nor destroy her 
virginity. It was in truth a mystery worthy of the God 
who was born, that He who wrought the conception with- 
out seed, preserved the birth from corruption.” * 


47 St. Ambrose, De Insiit. Virg., 
Villines ee: otic Oude estnaec 
porta nist Maria? Ideo clausa, quia 
virgo. Portaigitur Maria, per quam 
Christus intravit in hune mundum, 
quando virginali fusus est partu et 
genitalia vtirginitatis clausira non 
soluit. Mansit intemeratum septum 
pudoris et inviolata integritatis du- 
ravere signacula.... Bona porta 
Maria, quae clausa erat et non 
aperiebatur, transivit per eam Chri- 
stus, sed non aperuit.” 

48) Fibs wi37 1Gd | AV Olus., LL, 18s 
“Tpsa virtus per inviolatae matris 
virginea viscera membra infantis 


eduxit, quae postea per clausa ostia 
membra iuvenis introduxit. Hic st 
ratio quaeritur, non erit mirabile; st 
exemplum poscitur, non erit singu- 
lare. Demus Deum aliquid posse, 
quod nos fateamur investigare non 
posse: in talibus rebus tota ratio 


, factt est potentia facientis.” 


49 Ep. 79 ad ITustin.: “ Matris 
vulvam natus non aperiens et vir- 
ginitatem matris dettatis virtute non 
solvens. Dignum plane Deo na- 
scentis mysterium, ut servaret par- 
tum sine corruptione, qui conceptum 
fecit esse sine semine.” 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 95 


_ The Fathers employ a number of beautiful analogies 

to elucidate the dogma of the virgin birth. Thus they 
point to the spotless generation of the Logos in the bosom 
of the Father; to the genesis of thought in the spiritual 
soul; to the passage of light through a glass; to Christ’s 
triumphant resurrection from a sealed tomb, His passing 
through locked doors, and so forth. 

8) There are only two among the early Christian 
writers, Origen and Tertullian,®° who can be accused of 
false teaching in regard to the virgin birth. They were 
misled by a mistaken regard for the motherhood of our 
Lady, and partly also by a misapprehension of Luke 
II, 22. A few ecclesiastical writers employ the expres- 
sion “vulva aperta,’ but the context shows (especially 
when they argue against Docetism) that, far from deny- 
ing the virginal character of Christ’s birth, they merely 
mean to assert its reality. 


c) It is a certain theological conclusion that 
the Blessed Virgin was spared the throes of 
child-birth. 


St. Jerome quotes Sacred Scripture in support of this 
pious belief. ‘ There was no obstetrician there,” he says, 
“there were no sedulous women attendants. ... She 
‘wrapped Him up in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in 
a manger.” ®t St. John of Damascus. testifies to the 
belief of the Greeks that “no pleasure preceded this de- 
livery, no birth-throes accompanied it.”*? St. Bernard 

50 Tertullian says (De Carne 51 Contra Helvid., c. 4: “ Nulla 
Christi, c. 23): “Et virgo quan-  ibi obstetrix, nulla muliercularum 
tum a viro, et non virgo quantum _ sedulitas intercessit. . . . Pannis, in- 
a partu. ... Etsi virgo concepit, in quit, involuit infantem et posuit in 


partu suo nupsit ipsa, patefactad  praesepio.” 
corporis lege.” 52De Fide Orih., IV, 15: “oo 


96 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


observes that Christ’s conception “ was without reproach 
and His birth without pain.” *° 


Thesis III: The Blessed Mary remained a virgin 
after the birth of her Divine Son. 


This thesis likewise embodies an article of faith. 

Proof. Though married, our Lady preserved 
her virginity till death. The same is true of St. 
Joseph, who as St. Jerome ‘remarks, “was 
Mary’s protector rather than her husband, and 
like her, led a celibate life.’ °* 

This dogma was impugned in the early days by 
a sect called Antidicomarianites,” in the fourth 
and fifth centuries by Helvidius, Jovinian, and 
Bonosus, and in modern times by Th. Zahn °° and 
other rationalist theologians. The Council of 
Capua (A.D. 389) denounced Bonosus as a her- 
etic; his false teaching was censured at about 
the same time (A.D. 390) by synods held in 
Rome and Milan against Jovinian. The dog- 
matic term ever-virgin (demapOevos, semper virgo), 
which had been coined early in the history of the 
Church, was incorporated in the Creed by the 


quam nativitatem nulla voluptas 
anteivit nec dolor quidem in partu 


nullus fuit dolor, sicut nec aliqua 
corruptio.”” (Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 


secutus est.” 

53 Serm. de Virg. Nativitate, 4: 
“ Conceptus fuit sine pudore, partus 
sine dolore.’—St. Thomas states 
the intrinsic reason of this phenom- 
enon as follows: ‘‘ Christus egres- 
sus est ex clauso utero matris et sic 
nulla violentia apertionis meatuum 
sbi fuit, et propter hoc in illo party 


35,(.art..6.) 

54 Contra Helvid., 19: ‘“‘ Mariae, 
custos potius fuit quam maritus; re- 
linquitur, virginem eum mansisse 
cum Maria,.”’ 

55 Gr. avrldixot Maplas. 

56 Briider und Vettern Jesu, 
Leipzig 1900. 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 97 


Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, 
A. D. 553.7 The essential elements of the dogma 
of Mary’s perpetual virginity are severally em- 
phasized by the Lateran Council of 649, which 
says: “If any one refuse to confess, in accord- 
ance with the holy Fathers, that Mary was prop- 
erly speaking and of a truth the holy mother of 
God and always an immaculate virgin . . . that 
she conceived of the Holy Ghost without seed and 
gave birth without corruption, her virginity re- 
maining inviolate also after parturition, let him 
be anathema.” ®* The Sixth Ecumenical Coun- 
cil of Constantinople (A. D. 680) expresses this 
truth more tersely as follows: “The virginity of 
Mary ... remained before, during, and after 
panuiritiony (5. 

a) Mary’s virginitas post partum cannot be 
cogently proved from Sacred Scripture, but the 
dogma is deducible with moral certainty from the 
fact that she had resolved to remain a virgin all 
her life. It was this resolution which inspired her 
timid query: “How shall this be done, because [ 


57“... qui de coelis descendit et 
incarnatus de sancta gloriosa Det 


sanctam sempberque virginem imma- 
culatam Mariam. ... absque semine 


genitrice et semper virgine Maria 
(ék Hs aylas évddtov BeoTdKou 
Kal devrapOevov Maplas), natus est 
ex ea (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
214.) 

58“ Si quis secundum sanctos pa- 
tres non confitetur proprie et se- 
cundum veritatem Det genitricem 


concepisse ex Spiritu Sancto et tn- 
corruptibiliter eam genuisse indisso- 
lubili permanente et post parium 
eiusdem virginitate, condemnatus 
sit.’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, n, 256.) 

59 Mariae  illibata _—-virginitas, 
quae ante partum, in partu et post 
partum est interminabilis,” 


98  MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


know not man?” °° Only after the Angel had as- 
sured her that her chastity would remain intact, 
did she consent to become the mother of Jesus: 
“Be it done to me according to thy word.” * 


a) Some of the Fathers (SS. Gregory of Nyssa, Am- 
brose,** and Augustine **) held that Mary was bound by a 
vow of perpetual virginity. Suarez does not hesitate to 
call this “the Catholic view.” * It is confirmed by the 
fact that Jesus, when dying on the Cross, entrusted His 
mother to the care of St. John.°° “The words ‘ Be- 
hold thy son,” says the Protestant exegete Hengsten- 
berg, “indicate that Mary had no other sons besides 
Jesus. To honor one’s parents by faithfully providing 
for them is not only the duty but the right of every child, 
and Jesus would have violated the rights of His brethren, 
had he had any, by entrusting His mother to John.” % 

8B) All Antidicomarianite heretics since Bonosus have 
appealed to those well-known passages of the New Tes- 
tament in which mention is made of the “brethren” of 
Jesus.°* It is to be noted, however, that these “ brethren ” 
are nowhere referred to as sons of Mary. Jesus alone 
is called the son of Mary. So long as the Rationalists 
do not bring proof to show that “brethren of Jesus” is 
synonymous with “sons of Mary,” their assertion is gra- 
tuitous. 


60 Luke I, 34. 67 Das Evangelium des hl. Jo- 


61 Luke I, 38. hannes, Vol. III, p. 267, Leipzig 
62 In Nat. Domini (Migne, P. G., 1863. 

XLVI, 311). 68 Cir. Matth. XII, 46; XIII, 55; 
63 De Instit. Virg., V, 35. Mark III, 31 sq.; VI, 3; Luke VIII, 
64 De Sanct. Virginit., n. 4. 20; John II,.12; VII, 3 sqq.; Acts 
65 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. ira hGalt Tin, 

6, sect. 2. Cir. St. Thomas, Summa 69 6 vids Mapias. Cfr. Mark 

Theol., 3a, qu. 28, art. 4. Vigne: 


66 Cfr. John XIX, 26 sqq. 


a a ee ee 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 99 - 


But what does the Gospel mean when it speaks of the 
“brethren of Jesus”? Were they perhaps sons of St. 
Joseph by a previous marriage? This explanation was 
suggested by St. Epiphanius,”° but has been generally 
rejected since the time of St. Jerome, (1) because it is 
based on apocryphal sources and (2) because the universal 
belief of Christians is and has always been that St. 
Joseph, like his holy spouse, abstained from carnal inter- 
course throughout his life.*_ A simpler explanation, now 
generally accepted is, that since the term “ brother ” 7 is 
used in both Testaments as a synonym for “ kinsman” 
(nephew, cousin, etc.),"? the so-called ‘brethren of 
Jesus”? were probably near relatives of His Blessed 
Mother. We know this for certain in the case of three 
among the four who are enumerated by name as His 
brethren. St. Matthew records the query: “Is not his 
mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, 
and Simon, and Jude?” And, indeed, there appears 
under the Cross, as the “ mother of Jacob and Joseph,” a 
certain Mary * who, according to St. John, was identical 
with the wife of Cleophas and is expressly designated as a 
“sister”? (which probably means “cousin” ) of the - 
Blessed Virgin.*® Hence St. James the Less, who is em- 
phatically called “the brother of the Lord,” 7? was a son 

72 Frater, ddedpos. 

TO Chr y Gembinnd Den» sie on Pag ai 
XXIX, «5, and, in explanation 
thereof, Lamy,: Comment. in Gen., 
13, 8, Mechlin 1883. 

74 Matth. XIII, 55. 

75 Cfr. Matth. XXVII, 56. 


76 Cfr, John XIX, 25: “ Stabant 
autem iuxta crucem Iesu mater eius 


70“ Ceterum LIosephus primam e 
tribu Inudae coniugem habumt, ex qua 
sex liberos suscepit, mares quatuor, 
feminas duas.’ (Haer., 78, 7.) 

71 Cfr. St. Jerome, Contr. Hel- 
vid., c. 9: “ Tu dicis Mariam vir- 
ginem non permansisse; ego nul 
plus vindico, etiam ipsum LIoseph 
virginem fuisse per Mariam, ut ex 


virginali coniugio virgo filius nasce- 
retur.’ Further details in Bucce- 
toni, Comment. de SS. Corde TIesu, 
de B. Virgine et de S. Iosepho, pp. 
228 sqq., Rome 1896. 


et soror matris eius, Maria Cleophae 
(Mapia 4 rou KAwra) et Maria 
Magdalene.” 

TGA TAT. 


too.) MARY’S, SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


of Cleophas and Mary, not of Joseph and Mary. That 
this “ Iacobus Cleophae”’ is elsewhere called ‘“ Iacobus 
Alphei’” is presumably due to the circumstance that 
KAora and *AAdaios are merely two different Greek forms 
of the same Aramaic name. Now, if St. James the Less 
was a son of Cleophas (alias Alphzeus), it follows that 
his brother Joseph, (who is also numbered among the 
“brethren of Jesus’), was not a son of Joseph and Mary. 
St. Jude, too, who introduces himself in his Epistle as 
“the brother of James,” was probably a cousin of our 
Lord.78 

y) Another difficulty against the dogma of the per- 
petual virginity of Our Lady is taken from Matth. [5 18: 
“ When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before 
they came together she was found with child, of the Holy 
Ghost.” 7 “Came together” (convenirent) in this case 
probably means, “ dwelled together under the same roof.” 
But even if the term were used in the sense of marital 
intercourse,“ the zpiv or zpw 7% with infinitive, which fol- 
lows, indicates either that the act was not performed or 
that its performance is regarded as of secondary im- 
portance.” ®° “From the phrase ‘before they came to- 
gether’ it does not follow,” says St. Jerome, “that they 
came together afterwards; Holy Scripture merely inti- 

78 Cfr. J. Friedlieb, Das Leben 
Jesu Christi des Erloésers, pp. 325 


sqq., Paderborn 1887. There are 
other acceptable explanations. Con- 


Jakobusbrief, pp. 6-54, Freiburg 
1905. A good summary of the 
problem in English will be found in 
the appendix to Durand-Bruneau, 


sult on this topic especially Suarez, 
De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 5, 
sect. 4; also Schegg, Jakobus der 
Bruder des Herrn und sein Brief, 
p. 53, Miinchen 1883. The whole 
subject is treated with thoroughness 
by Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutier 
in der Hl. Schrift, pp. 79 
sqq. (Engl. tr., pp. 85  saqq.). 
Against Zahn see M. Meinertz, Der 


The Childhood of Jesus Christ ac- 
cording to the Canonical Gospels, 
pp. 259-316, Philadelphia 1910. 

79 ““ Quum esset desponsata mater 
eius Maria lIoseph, antequam con- 
venirent (amply ) ouvedOely avTovs) 
inventa est in utero habens de 
Spiritu Sancto.” 

80 Cfr. Al. Schaefer, Die Goties- 
mutter, p. 76 (Engl. tr., p. 82). 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY Tot 
mates what did not happen.” ®t Writing against Helvi- 
dius, the same Saint cleverly argues ad hominem in this 
fashion: “If I say: ‘Helvidius died before he did 
penance for his sins,’ does it follow that he did penance 
after his death?” * 

8) Still another text tiesed against the dogma of 
Mary’s perpetual virginity is Matth. I, 25: “And he 
[Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she brought forth her 
firstborn son.” ®* Helvidius heretically concluded from 
this statement that Joseph “knew” (i. e., had marital 
intercourse with) his spouse after she had brought forth 
her firstborn son. St. Jerome demonstrates the absurdity 
of this inference by pointing to such analogous texts as 
Ps. CIX, 1: “ Sit thou at' my right hand, until I make 
thy enemies thy footstool,’ and Gen. VIII, 6 sq.: 
“., the raven... did not return till the waters were 
dried up upon the earth.” Does it follow, he asks, that 
Christ will no longer sit at the right hand of God the 
Father when His enemies lie defeated at His feet? Or 
did the raven return to the ark after the waters were 
dried up? 

But does not the term “firstborn” imply that Mary 
gave birth to more children than one? Not at all, for, 
as St. Jerome points out, the Scriptures ** frequently em- 
ploy the word “ firstborn ” to denote a mother’s first child, 
no matter whether it is followed by others or remains the 
only one.®° 


81 In Matth., I, 18 (Migne, P. L., 
XXVI, 24): “ Quod autem dicitur 
antequam convenirent, non sequitur 
quod postea convenerint, sed Scrip- 
tura, quod factum non sit, ostendit.”’ 

82 In Matth., I, 18 saqq. 

83°. Et non cognoscebat eam, 
donec peperit (€ws ob érexev) flium 


suum primogenitum (roy mpwrtdTo- 
Kov).” 

84 Cfr. Ex. XXXIV, 19 Sd-» Num. 
DEVAS 

85 St. Jerome, apud Migne, P. L., 
XXVI, 25: ‘ Mos est divinarum 
scripturarum, ut primogenitum non 
eum vocent, quem fratres sequun- 


tur, sed eum qui primus natus est.” 


to2 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


b) The belief in Mary’s virginitas post partum, 
or, more generally speaking, her perpetual vir- 
ginity, is so firmly rooted in primitive Tradition 
that the Fathers regard its denial as an insult to 
our Lord Himself. 

Siricius and Bede indignantly charge the op- 
ponents of this dogma with “perfidy ;’ Gennadius 
accuses them of “blasphemy,” St. Ambrose of 
“sacrilege,” St. Jerome of “impiety,” and St. 
Epiphanius of “a rashness exceeding all bounds.” 
St. Basil declares: “Those who love Christ will 
not brook the assertion that the Mother of God 
ever ceased to be a virgin.” *° St. Ambrose en- 
thusiastically exclaims: “But Mary did not 
fail, the mistress of virginity did not fail; nor was 
it possible that she who had borne God, should be 
regarded as bearing a man. And Joseph, the 
just man, assuredly did not so completely lose his 
mind as to seek carnal intercourse with the mother 
of God.” ** St. Jerome appeals in support of the 
dogma to Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenzeus, 
Justin Martyr, and other sub-Apostolic Fathers.™ 
Mary is venerated as ever-virgin (demapfevos) in 


contra Helvid., 17: “ Numquid non 
possum tibi totam veterum scripto- 
rum seriem commovere: Ignatium, 


86 Hom. in Chr. Gener., 25- 
87 De Inst. Virg., V1, 44: “ Sed 
non deficit Maria, non deficit vir- 


ginitatis magistra; nec fiert poterat, 
ut quae Deum portaverat, portandum 
hominem arbitraretur. Nec Ioseph, 
vir iustus, in hanc prorupisset amen- 
tiam, ut matri Domini corporeo 
concubitu misceretur.” 

88 De Perpet. Virginit. B. Mariae 


Polycarpum, Ireneum, Iustinum M. 
multosque alios apostolicos et elo- \ 
quentes viros, qui adversus Ebionem 
et Theodotum.... haec eadem sen- 
tientes plena sapientiae volumina 
conscripserunt? Quae si legisses 
aliquando, plus saperes.” 


HER PERPETUAL VIRGINITY 103 > 


the earliest liturgies,®*® and this title of honor evi- 
dently supposes that she remained a virgin all her 
life. It is in this sense that St. Augustine says 
in one of his sermons: “Behold the miracle of 
the Mother of our Lord: She conceived as a vir- 
gin, she gave birth as a virgin, she remained a 
virgin aiter child-birth.” °° 

St. Thomas enumerates four principal reasons 
why it was morally necessary that the Blessed 
Virgin Mary should preserve perpetual virginity. 
These reasons are: (1) The unique character of 
Christ as the Only-begotten Son of God; (2) The 
honor and dignity of the Holy Ghost, who over- 
shadowed her virginal womb; (3) The excellency 
of the title Deipara, and (4) The honor and 
chivalry of St. Joseph, who was commissioned to 
be the protector and guardian of his chaste 
spouse.°* 


ReEaApincs : — See the Readings following Section 1, pp. 35 saq., 
supra, and in addition: St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 28, art. 
1-4, and the commentators, especially Billuart, De Myst. Christi, 
diss. 1, art. 3 sqq., and Suarez, De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 5, 
sect. I sqq. 

The teaching of the Fathers is copiously expounded by Peta- 
vius, De Incarnatione, XIV, 3 sqq. and Thomassin, De Incarna- 
tione, II, 3 sqq. 

Cfr. also *Reinke, Die Weissagung von der Jungfrau und vom 
Immanuel, Minster 1848; Galfano, La Vergine delle Vergim, 


89 Cfr. Renaudot, Vol. I, pp. 18, peperit, virgo post partum perman- 
AANA hl sy LEO. sit.’ (Serm. de Temb., 23.) 

190 “‘ Videte miraculum Matris 91 Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 28, 
dominicae: virgo concepit, virgo art. 3. 


1o4 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


Palermo 1882.—- Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 15, 4th ed., 
Rome 1910.—*Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter in der HI. Schrift, 
2nd ed., pp. 11 sqq., Minster 1900 (English translation by F. 
Brossart, The Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture, pp. 17 sqq., 
New York 1913).— J. H. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Atha- 
nasius, Vol. II, pp. 204 sqq., 9th ed., London 1903.— E. Neubert, 
Marie dans lEglise Anténicéenne, pp. 159-208, Paris 1908.— B. J. 
Otten, S. J., A Manial of the History of Dogmas, Vol. 1, St. 
Louis I917, pp. 442 sqq. 


SECTION 4 


MARY’S BODILY ASSUMPTION INTO HEAVEN 


The doctrine of our Lady’s bodily Assumption 
was brought prominently forward by a petition 
submitted to the Vatican Council, in 1870, by 204 
Bishops, asking that this pious belief be defined as 
an article of faith." The Assumption, conse- 
quently, is not yet a dogma, though Suarez says 
that “whoever would impugn this pious and reli- 
gious belief would be held guilty of extreme rash- 
ness.” ? To-day, when so many ancient docu- 
ments are recognized as spurious, this judgment 
is, perhaps, too severe. 

I. THE DeatH oF Our Lapy.—History tells 
us nothing about the time when our Lady died 
or the circumstances of her death. Nor do we 
know where she was buried. Scripture is silent 
on all these points and the oldest extant accounts 
are based entirely on apocryphal sources. 
Though some theologians have denied the reality 
of Our Lady’s death,? it has been a matter of uni- 
versal belief from primitive times. 


1 Cfr. Martin, Conc. Vat. Docu- osamque sententiam hodie impugna- 
ment. Collectio, p. 112, Paderborn _ ret.” 
1873. 3 E. g., Arnaldus, Super Transitu 
2De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 21, B. Mariae Virginis Deiparae, Genoa 
sect 2: “‘ Summae temeritatis reus 1879; against him Berdani in the 


crederetur, qui tam piam religi- Scuola Cattolica, Milan 1880. 
105 


106 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


a) As we have already observed, there is no historical 
argument to prove the fact. In the fourth century, St. 
Epiphanius, after a careful investigation of the available 
evidence, confessed himself unable to arrive at a definite 
conclusion.* Nor have we any certain knowledge regard- 
ing the date of our Lady’s demise or the place of her bur- 
ial. Pseudo-Dionysius’ account ® of a miraculous meeting 
of the Apostles at her deathbed is merely a pious legend, 
which can claim no greater credence than the stories 
circulated at an early date regarding the death and al- 
leged resurrection of the Master’s favorite disciple, Saint 
John.6 The recent controversy between Fonck and 
Nirschl as to whether the Blessed Virgin died at Ephesus 
or Jerusalem, has led to no positive results, and we must 
still acknowledge with Billuart that both opinions are 
equally probable.*. The belief that our Lady died rests 
on the law of the universality of death, from which not 
even the Godman Himself was exempt.® 


b) Since the sixth century the death of the 
Blessed Virgin is commemorated in the liturgies 
on August 15th. 


The Sacramentary of Pope Gregory I (540-604) con- 
tains this passage: ‘‘ To-day’s festival is venerable to us, 
O Lord, because on this day the blessed Mother of God 


4De Haer., 78, n. 11: “ Neque 1887; Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrol- 


aut immortalem perseverasse definio, 
aut, utrum mortua sit, confirmare 
possum, . «. Sive igitur mortua sit 
nescimus, sive consepulta sit.” 

5 De Divine Nom., c. 3. 

6Cfr. C. Tischendorff, Apoca- 
lypses Apocryphae, item Mariae 
Dormitio, pp. 95 sqq., Lipsiae 1866; 
Lipsius, Apokryphe Apostelgeschich- 
ten und Abpostellegenden, Leipzig 


ogy, pp. 113 saq., Freiburg 1908. 

7 De Myst. Christi, diss. 14, art. 
1: “Quo loco obierit Deipara, an 
Ephesi, an Ierosolomis, definirt non 
potest propter probabilitatem utri- 
usque sententiae.” 

8 See the dogmatic treatise on 
Eschatology. Cfr. Jos. Nirschl, Das 
Haus und Grab der hl. Jungfrau 
Maria, Mainz 1900. 


HER ASSUMPTION 


suffered temporal death, but it was not possible that 
she who gave birth to our incarnate Lord, Thy Son, 
should be subjugated by death.”® <A similar prayer is 
found in all the Roman missals published since the time 
of Pius V. : 

It goes without saying that the death of Our Lady is 
not to be regarded as a penalty for wrong-doing, nor yet 
as an effect of original sin. The immaculately con- 
ceived Mother of God was exempt from concupiscence 7° 
and the debitum mortis. Pope Pius V, in 1567, con- 
demned the following proposition of Bajus: “No one 
except Christ is without original sin; consequently the 
Blessed Virgin died because of sin contracted through 
Adam.” 14 It was meet and proper that the Mother 
of Christ should be made like unto her Divine 
Son. This conformity did not, however, require that she 
should die a martyr’s death. Christ alone had to die for 
the sins of the world. Mary’s was a spiritual martyrdom 
at the foot of the Cross, and she is therefore rightly called 
“Qteen of Martyrs.”?? It is the common belief of 
Christians that she died a natural and painless death.*% 


2. THE Docmatic DATA FOR THE ASSUMP- 
TION.—The bodily resurrection and assumption 


originali; hine B. Virgo mortua est 
propter peccatum ex Adam contrac- 


9“ Veneranda nobis, Domine, 
huius est diet festivitas, in qua 


107) 


sancta Dei genitrix mortem subitt 
temporalem, nec tamen mortis next- 
bus deprimi potuit, quae Filium 
tuum Dominum nostrum de se 
genuit incarnatum.’ (Migne, P. L., 
LXXVIII, 133.) 

10 V. supra, Section 2, Thesis 1. 

11 Cfr. the seventy-third of the 
propositions of Baius condemned by 
Pope Pius V, A.D. 1567: “‘ Nemo 
praeter nati est absque peccato 


tum.” 

12 St. Ambrose says, In Luc., II, 
61: “Nec litera nec historia docet, 
ex hac vita Mariam corporalis necis 
passione migrasse; non enim anima, 
sed corpus material gladio itrans- 
verberatur.” i 

13 “ Nec partus poenam sensit nec 
obitus,’ says St. John Damascene. 
Albertus Magnus taught that she 
died in consequence of her intense 


108 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


of our Lady can no more be established by his- 
toric proofs than her death and burial. There is 
no historical tradition on the subject of sufficient 
authenticity to furnish the basis for a dogmatic 
argument. The first five centuries present an 
empty void, and no historic bridge connects us 
with the eye-witnesses of the event. ‘The apocry- 
pha can furnish no solid argument. 


Among the apocryphal sources may be reckoned all the 
accounts of the bodily Assumption of Our Lady attrib- 
uted to St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Dio- 
nysius the Areopagite, and St. John of Damascus. To 
make believe that he was a disciple of the Apostles, 
the Pseudo-Areopagite ** tells of a journey which he 
claims to have made “to see the body which engen- 
dered life and bore God” ?° and in the course of which 
he met St: James, “the brother of God,’ ** and “ Peter, 
the most eminent and most ancient head of theolo- 
gians.” 

St. John of Damascus has left us three genuine hom- 
ilies on the bodily Assumption of Mary, to which we shall 
return further down. “A later hand has interpolated 
in the second homily (c. 18) the often-quoted but very 
enigmatical account of the dealings of the Empress Pul- 
cheria with Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, in reference 
to the sepulchre of Mary.” *’ The fact that her tomb 
was found empty and that no relics remained of her body, 
gives color to the belief that she was assumed bodily into 


love for her Divine Son and her 15 émt rhv Oday Tov CwapxLKov 
burning desire to be reunited with  xal Oeoddxov cwmparos. 
Him in Heaven. 166 ddedpdbeos. 

14 Cfr. De Divin. Nom., Ill, 2. 17 Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Patrol- 


O9N, Ds 5- 


HER ASSUMPTION 109 - 


Heaven ; but does not afford a dogmatic basis. It would 
be useless, therefore, to try to decide the question of 
. purely historic evidence. 

It may be objected: If the Assumption of Our Lady 
cannot be demonstrated to be an historic fact, how can 
theologians speak of it as “certain” and express the 
hope that it will eventually be raised to the rank of a 
dogma? The answer is that an insufficiently attested fact 
may be as surely proved by the dogmatic as by the histor- 
ical method. Thus, for instance, there is no historic 
evidence by which we could establish the Immaculate 
Conception or the sinlessness of our Lady. Sim- 
ilarly, belief in the Assumption did not originate entirely 
in historic documents, but mainly in dogmatic considera- 
tions connected with our Lady’s prerogatives as Deipara 
and confirmed by an Apostolic Tradition, which at first 
lay hidden, but came to the surface about the sixth cen- 
tury and continued its course to the present time, with 
all the marks of a revealed tradition.1® 


a) We come to the theological arguments in 
favor of the Assumption of our Lady. 

Chief among these is the doctrine of the incor- 
ruptibility of her body. 


We can scarcely assume that the virginal body which 
conceived and gave birth to the Godman ‘became a prey 
to corruption. Not that physical decay involves a moral 
taint; but Christian piety has always preferred to hold, 
with Pseudo-Jerome, that the body of God’s holy Mother 

18 Cir. L, Duchesne, Origines du Kénig, Geschichte der Aufbewah- 
Culte Chrétien, pp. 123 sqq., Paris rung und Verehrung der Gottes- 
1889 (English ed.: Christian Wor- mutter-Reliquien auf Erden, Ratis- 


ship: Its Origin and Evolution, bon 1897; Kellner, Heortology, pp. 
London 1903, pp. 269 sqq.); Al. 235 sqq., London 1908, 


110.«=)30)/ MARY’S: SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


escaped the horrors of the grave.4® Incorruptibility is 
distinctly emphasized as an attribute of Divine Mother- 
hood in the liturgy of Pope Gregory the Great.2? Very 
properly, therefore, is the passage: ‘‘ Thou wilt not give 
thy holy one to see corruption” (Ps. XV, 10) applied 
to Mary, because, as Deipara, she was of one flesh with 
her Divine Son (Caro Jesu, caro Mariae). 

The incorruptibility of our Lady’s sacred body may 
also be inferred from her perpetual virginity. There is 
an inseparable causal connection between incorruptio vir- 
ginalis and incorruptio corporalis —the one is the fruit- 
age of the other. This is emphasized in the liturgical 
prayers of the Church and the writings of the later 
Fathers. Thus we read in the Mozarabic liturgy, which 
originated in Spain after the fifth century: “ Ingenerate 
Father on high, who hast conferred such great preroga- 
tives upon the glorious Mary, . . . as she merited to be 
assumed to-day into the choirs of the angels and virgins, 
or to be gladdened by the gift of incorrupt flesh, so do 
Thou extirpate carnal desires in us and admit us to that 
same place . . . O ineffable chastity, O immaculate vir- 
ginity, which deserved to be admitted to the abode of 
the blessed in this novel and unspeakable manner! ” 74 
St. Andrew of Crete (died about 720) expresses him- 
self thus in a homily for the festival of the Assump- 
tion: “As the womb [of Mary] was in no wise cor- 


19 Tract. de Assumpt. B. Mariae 
Virginis, c. 6: “Illud ergo sacra- 
tissimum corpus escam vermibus tra- 
ditum in communt sorte putredinis, 
quia sentire non valeo, dicere per- 
horresco.” 

20V. supra, pp. 106 sq. 

21 “‘Ingenite Pater summe, qui 
tanta ac talia beneficit munera Vir- 
gint gloriosae Mariae contulisti, 


. sicut illa hodie inter angelorum 
virginumque choros meruit assumt 
sive dono illibatae carnis feliciter 
tocundari, sic nos stimulo perfecte 
exstirpato carnali beatiores ibidem 
admitte....O ineffabilis castitas 
et immaculata virginitas, quae novo 
et ineffabili modo assumi in superna 
meruit sede.’ (Migne, P. L., 
LXXXV, 822, 824.) 


HER ASSUMPTION TIt. 


rupted by parturition, so her flesh did not perish after 
death.” *? As the virginal body of Our Divine Saviour 
was preserved from decay in the grave, so the body of 
His immaculate Mother must have escaped corruption, be- 
cause, by virtue of a special privilege, it was not a corpus 
peccati, and consequently not a corpus mortis. 


b) From the incorruptibility of our Lady’s body 
to its early resurrection, 1. e., her bodily Assump- 
tion into Heaven, is but one remove. It is im- 
possible to assume that Christ should wait for 
the day when all men will rise from the dead, to 
re-unite the virginal body of His Mother with her 
pure soul. 


St. Bernard insists that if the body of our Lady had 
not been assumed into Heaven, God would not have 
concealed its resting-place. But this is hardly a cogent 
argument. God might have chosen to conceal our Lady’s 
tomb for the same reason that led Him to hide the grave 
of Moses,?* viz.: to prevent idolatrous practices. Again, 
He might have removed the sacred corpse to some extra- 
mundane place, for instance, that where the living bodies 
of Enoch and Elias await the end of the world. The 
Benedictine monk Usuard (about A. D. 860) seems to 
have favored the last-mentioned theory.*+ 

But there is one strictly dogmatic consideration which 
sweeps away all doubt in the corporeal assumption of 

22 Or. de Dormit. B. Mariae Vir- tricis Mariae.... Quo autem ven- 
ginis, 2, 5: “ Ut minime corruptus  erabile illud Spiritus Sancti tem- 
est parturientis uterus, ita nec pert plum nutu et consilio divino occul- 
defunctae caro.” tatum sit, plus elegit sobrietas Ec- 

23 Cfr. Deut. XXXIV, 6. clesiae cum pietate nesciri, quam 


24 Cfr. his Martyrologium, Venice aliquid frivolum et apocryphum 
1745: “ Dormitio sanctae Det geni- inde tenendo docere.’”’ 


112) MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


our Lady. As the Mother of God Mary was conceived 
without original taint, free from concupiscence, and ab- 
solutely exempt from personal sin; therefore she could 
not possibly be subject to the dominion of death up to 
the time of the general resurrection. We have shown 
on a previous page that her exemption from original sin 
necessarily involves exemption from the penalties of sin. 
Consequently, she was also exempt from death. If 
nevertheless, to conform herself more closely to her 
Divine Son, she paid tribute to death, her dignity as 
Deipara and Ever-Virgin demanded at least this much 
that she should forthwith —the legend has it on the 
third day—be raised from the dead and assumed 
with body and soul into Heaven. The Scotistic syl- 
logism “ Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit” would seem to 
apply to the doctrine of the Assumption with precisely 
the same force with which it bears on the dogma of the 
Immaculate Conception. St. Germanus, Patriarch of 
Constantinople (died 733), evidently felt this when he 
exclaimed: “ Let death recede from thee, O Mother of 
God, who hast brought life to mortal men! Let the 
grave recede from thee, because thou hast become a 
divine foundation of unspeakable grandeur! Away 
with the dust; for thou art a new structure, being the 
mistress of those who have become spoilt in the mire of 
clay! ... Thou hast obtained the honorary title of 
Mother of God... Therefore it was becoming that 
thy body, which had received into itself the Life, should 
not be enshrouded in deathly corruption.” 7° 


c) These more or less aprioristic reasons find a 
strong support in Scripture. The bishops who, 


25 Or. in Dormit. B. Mariae, 2. (Migne, P. G., XEVIII, 359). 


HER ASSUMPTION 113) 


at the time of the Vatican Council, petitioned the 
Holy See to dogmatize the doctrine of the As- 
sumption, appealed mainly to the traditional 
interpretation of the Protevangelium.” 


They argued as follows: ‘‘ According to the Apostolic 
teaching [recorded in Rom, V, 8, 1 Cor. XV, 24, 26, 54, 
57, Heb. II, 14, 15 and other texts], when Jesus tri- 
umphed over the Ancient Serpent (Satan), He gained 
a threefold victory over sin and its effects, 6. @., con- 
cupiscence and death. Since the Mother of God is as- 
sociated in a singular manner in this triumph with her 
Son, (Gen. III, 15), which is also the unanimous 
opinion of the Fathers: we do not doubt that in the afore- 
mentioned [Scriptural] passage this same Blessed Virgin 
is presignified as illustrious by that threefold victory: 
over sin by her immaculate conception, over concupis- 
cence by her virginal motherhood, and in like manner 
over hostile death by a triumphant resurrection similar 
to that of her Son.” 2? In matter of fact the “ enmity” 
which God placed between Mary and the serpent was 
directed not only against sin but likewise against the fruits 
of sin, i. e., concupiscence and physical death. Death 
would have actually triumphed over the “ woman” 


26V. supra, pp. 43 sd. 

27“ Quum iuata apostolicam doc- 
trinam (Rom. V, 8; 1 Cor. XV, 24, 
26, 54, 57; Heb. II, 14, 15) aliisque 
locis traditam triplict victoria de 
peccato et de peccatt fructibus: con- 
cupiscentia et morte veluti ex parti- 
bus’ integrantibus constituatur ille 
triumphus, quem de satana, antiquo 
serpente, Christus retulit, quum- 
que Gen. III, 15 Deipara exhibeatur 
singulariter associata Filio suo in hoc 
triumpho accedente unanimi SS. eae 
trum suffragio: non dubitamus quin 


in praefato oraculo eadem B. Virgo 
triplict illa victoria praesignificetur 
illustris adeoque non secus ac de 
peccato per immaculatam concep- 
tionem et concupiscentia per vir- 
ginalem maternitatem, sic etiam de 
inimica morte singularem triumphum 
relatura per acceleratam ad similitu- 
dinem Filii sui resurrectionem 
ibidem praenuntiata fuit.”” (Collect. 
Lacensis, Vol. VII, p. 869). 

28 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Au- 
thor of Nature and the Supernat- 
ural, pp. 222 sq. 


114 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 
(Mary) had she been subject to decay and were her res- 
urrection postponed to the Last Judgment. Properly in- 
terpreted, therefore, the Protevangelium contains a pre- 
diction, not only of the Immaculate Conception of our 
Lady, but likewise — though not so clearly —of her 
bodily assumption into Heaven. Side by side with her 
Divine Son Mary triumphs over death. 

To this may be added another consideration. It is the 
teaching of Fathers and theologians that the Ark of 
the Covenant, which was made of pure gold and over- 
shadowed by a cloud, was preéminently a type of the 
Blessed Virgin Mary.2° Now the Psalmist says: 
“ Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, 
which thou hast sanctified.”®° And St. John in the 
Apocalypse: “The temple of God was opened in 
heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his 
temple. ... And a great sign appeared in heaven: A 
woman clothed with the sun.” * 


d) The most reliable source of Catholic belief 
in the bodily assumption of Mary is ecclesiastical 
tradition, which became crystallized as early as 
the sixth century and, despite the elimination of 
apocryphal legends, persisted up to the present. 
time—a proof that the belief of the faith- 
ful did not originate in, nor owe its diffusion to, 
the apocrypha. The tradition that Our Lady was 


Apoc. XII, 1: “ Signum magnum 
apparuit in coelo, mulier amicta sole 


29V. supra, p. 17. 
30 Ps. CXXXI, 8: “ Surge, Do- 


mine, in requiem tuam, tu et arca 
sanctificationis tuae.’’ 

31 Apoc, XI, 19: “Et apertum 
est templum Det in coelo: visa est 
arca testamenti eius in templo eius.” 


(yurH mepiBeBrAnuevn Tov HALov).” 
—Cfr. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. 
III, pp. 584 sq.; Al. Schaefer, Die 
Gottesmutter in der Hl. Schrift, pp. 
207 sq. (English ed., pp. 257 sqq.). 


HER ASSUMPTION 115 . 


assumed bodily into Heaven emerged into broad 
daylight in the sixth century and manifested itself 
practically in the liturgical celebration of the fes- 
tival of her Assumption, and theoretically in the 
homiletic teaching of the Fathers in connection 
with this festival. 


a) Under different names (dormitio, depositio, pausa- 
tio, assumptio B. Mariae Virginis, xoiynows tis OeotdKov 
Mapias) this feast from the very beginning had for its 
object the assumption of our Lady with soul and body 
into Heaven. In Italy and Spain it was celebrated Au- 
gust 15, in Gaul, January 18.3? In the East the pious 
Emperor Mauritius (582-602) introduced the celebra- 
tion of the feast of the xoluyos (falling asleep) of the 
Blessed Virgin and commanded it to be celebrated on the 
fifteenth of August in all those places of the Byzantine 
Empire where it was not yet observed.** This accounts 
for the fact that the schismatic Greek Church has faith- 
fully retained the custom of solemnizing the festival of 
the Assumption. At a council held in Jerusalem, A. D. 
1672, the schismatics confessed: ‘“ Though the immacu- 
late body of Mary was locked in the tomb, yet, like Christ, 
she was assumed and migrated to Heaven on the third 

32 A Gothic missal used in Gaul 


up to the eighth century contains 
this passage: “‘ Fratres carissimi, 


assumptione secura, paradiso dote 
praelaia.... Recte ab ipso sus- 
cepia es in assumptione feliciter, 


fusis precibus Dominum implore- 
mus, ut eius indulgentia illuc de- 
functit liberentur a tartaro, quo 
beatae Virginis translatum est cor- 
pus de sepulcro.... Quo [tem- 
pore] Virgo Dei genitrix de mundo 
migravit ad Christum, quae nec de 
corruptione suscepit contagium nec 
resolutionem pertulit in sepulcro: 


bollutione libera, germine gloriosa, 


quem pie suscepisti conceptura per 
fidem, ut quae terrae non eras con- 
scia, non teneret rupes inclusa.’” 
(Migne, P. L., LX XII, 245.) Other 
passages of similar tenor are quoted 
by Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. III, 


Ele Sere 


33 Cfr. Nicephorus Callistus, Hisé. 
Becl.,, SVIT,\ 28. 


716°) MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


day.” °* The Armenians declared in their symbol of 
union (A.D. 1342): ‘The Church of the Armenians 
believes and holds that the holy Mother of God was by 
the power of Christ assumed with her body into 
Heavens ict 

True, the idea underlying the celebration of the festi- 
val of the Assumption was now and then temporarily 
obscured, as may be seen from the Martyrology of 
Usuard, quoted above.*® But these temporary obscura- 
tions were not nearly so frequent nor so grave as those 
which retarded the development of the dogma of the 
Immaculate Conception. Then, too, the doubts which 
arose with regard to the Assumption were occasioned, not 
by apocryphal stories, but rather by the ecclesiastical 
condemnation of certain apocryphal books, as, for ex- 
ample, the rejection by the Decretum Gelasianum of the 
Liber de Transitu Beatae Mariae Virginis, falsely at- 
tributed to St. Melito of Sardes.” But all doubts were 
ultimately dispelled. 

@B) Synchronously with the introduction of the feast 
of the Assumption the later Fathers testified in favor of 
the doctrine upon which it was based. The earliest tes- 
timony we know of in the Western Church is this utter- 
ance of St. Gregory of Tours (+596): “The Lord 
commanded the holy body [of Mary after her death] to 
be borne on a cloud to Paradise, where, reunited to its 
soul, and exulting with the Elect, it enjoys the never 


34 Quamvis conclusum in sepul- tute Christi assumpta fuit im 
cro fuerit immaculatum corporis coelum cum corpore.” 
Mariae tabernaculum, in coelum 86 Supra, p. 111. 
tamen uti Christus fuerat assump- 37 Cfr. Probst, Die  dltesten 


tus, tertid et ipsd die in coelum romischen Sakramentarien, pp. 143 

migravit.”” (Hardouin, Concil., XI, sqq., Minster 1892; H. Kihn, Pa- 

199.) trologie, Vol. I, p. 169, Paderborn 
35 Ecclesia Armenorum | credit 1904. 

et tenet, quod S. Det genitrix vir- 


— ~ 
ie a ee “> 


HER ASSUMPTION Ti 


ending bliss of eternity.” ** The Patriarch Modestus, 
who preceded St. Sophronius as Bishop of Jerusalem 
(+ 634), left a panegyric on the bodily Assumption of 
the Blessed Virgin under the title: “Eyxwpuov eis ryv 


~ / ~ , \ ld 
koiunow THs tmepayias Seoroivys judv OeordKov Kal deapHevov 


Mapias.*° 

Our most important witnesses are St. Andrew of 
Crete (+ 720), St. Germanus, Patriarch of Byzantium 
(+ 733), and especially St. John of Damascus (died 
after 754). Damascene’s three homilies on the Dormitio 
(cis thy kolynow), written for the Feast of the Assumption, 
“present the bodily Assumption of the Mother of God 
into Heaven as an ancient heirloom of Catholic faith, and 
declare that their sole purpose is to develop and estab- 
lish what in a brief and almost too concise a manner the 


son has inherited from the father, according to jhe 


Le we 


common saying.” *° fe 

How the Greeks conceived the Dormitio of the Blessed 
Virgin appears from a panegyric composed for the 
fifteenth of August by St. Theodore Studita (about 759- 
826). “The true mountain of Sion,’ he says, “on 
which, as the Psalmist sings, God condescended to 
dwell, migrates from among these terrestrial hills and ap- 
proaches the celestial mountains. To-day the terrestrial 
heaven, clothed in the garb of immutability, is trans- 
planted to a better and eternal habitation. To-day the 
divinely-illumined spiritual moon ascends towards the 
sun of justice and takes leave of this life to re-arise in 
the splendor of immortality. To-day the golden shrine 


38“ Dominus susceptum corpus (Mirac., I, 4, apbud Migne, P. Ty 
sanctum [Mariae mortuae] in nube LXXI, 708.) 


deferri iussit in paradisum, ubs 39 Reprinted in Migne, P. G., 
nunc resumpta anima cum electis LXXXVI, 2, 3277 sqq. 
eius exsultans aeternitatis bonis 40 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pairol- 


nullo occasuris fine perfruitur.’ ogy, p. 588 


118 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


which God Himself made is removed from the terrestrial 
tents to the heavenly Jerusalem.” * 

y) Is the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin a 
veritas proxime defimibilis? In regard to this question 
opinions may legitimately differ. Possibly the develop- 
ment and solidification of the dogmatic basis of this doc- 
trine will yet require prolonged labor on the part of 
Catholic theologians. A long step forward has been 
taken by setting aside the historic method and basing the 
argument on strictly dogmatic grounds. The theological 
as well as the Scriptural argument seem in this question 
to have but a secondary and subsidiary value, and the 
case for the Assumption rests mainly on an ecclesiastical 
tradition which has all the distinguishing characteristics 
of Apostolicity. In our humble opinion the argument 
from tradition is so strong that the formal definition of the 
Assumption is but a question of time. The opportune- 
ness of a solemn definition will hardly be disputed. 
Perhaps the Church will see fit to obviate certain dif- 
ficulties by formally defining the bodily Assumption of 
Our Lady and leaving her physical death to be taught as 
a theological conclusion. The definition of the Assump- 
tion would be the last jewel in the crown of Our Blessed 
Lady. 


Reapincs:— Billuart, De Myst. Christi, diss. 14, art. I-2— 
Gaudin, Assumptio Corporea Mariae Virginis Vindicata, Paris 
1670.— *Morgott, Die Mariologie des hl. Thomas, pp. 117 sqq., 
Freiburg 1878.—*Agostino Lana, La Resurrezione e Corporea 
Assunzione al Cielo della S. Vergine Madre di Dio, Rome 1880. 
— Vaccari, De B. Virginis Mariae Morte, Resurrectione et in 
Coelos Gloriosa Assumptione, 2d ed., Ferrari 1881.— *Scheeben, 
Dogmatik, Vol. III, § 281, Freiburg 1882.— Jannucci, Firmitudo 

41 For the full text of this pic- Dogmat., Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 349 


turesque panegyric see Migne, P, sqq., Freiburg 1909. 
G3 CVIL) ts9.) Cir. Peseh) Prael. 


HER ASSUMPTION 119° 


Catholicae Veritatis de Psychosomatica Assumptione Deiparae, 
Turin 1884.— Bucceroni, Commentarii ... de B. Virgine Mania, 
4th ed., pp. 193 sqq., Rome 1896.—Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones 
Dogmaticae, Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 349 sqq., Freiburg 1909.— G. B. 
Tepe, Institutiones Theologicae, Vol. lil, pp. 721 sqq., Paris 
1896.— M. J. Spalding, Miscellanea, Vol. II, pp. 736-748, Baltimore 
1892— B. L. Conway, Studies in Church History, pp. 71 sqq., post 
Louis 1915.— Di Pietro, L’Assunzione di Maria in Cielo secondo 
la Storia e la Tradizione, S. Benigno Cavanese 1903.—F. G. Hol- 
weck, Marié Himmelfahrt, St. Louis 1910—F. O'Neill, “The 
Assumption of the Bl. Virgin according to the Teaching of Pius 
IX and St. Thomas,” in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 44th year, 
No. 524, pp. 113-136.— P. Renaudin, La Doctrine de lAssomp- 
tion de la T. S. Vierge, Sa Definibilité comme Dogme de Fo 
Divine Catholique, Paris 1913— B. J. Otten, S. J.. 4 Manual of 
the History of Dogmas, Vol. 1, St. Louis 1917, pp. 447 sa. 

On the death of the Blessed Virgin Mary, cfr. Suarez, De 
Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 21, sect. 1 sqq.; Canisius, De Maria 
Virgine, V, 3 sqq., Ingolstadt 1577; Benedict XIV, De Festis 
Beatae Mariae Virginis, II, 8; Arnaldus, Super Transitu B. 
Mariae Virginis Deiparae, Genoa 1879; J. Nirschl, Das Grab 
der hl. Jungfrau Maria, Mainz 1896. 


CTIAP ERA 


THE POSITIVE PREROGATIVES OF THE BLESSED 
VIRGIN 


In the preceding Chapter we have dealt with what are 
generally called the negative privileges of the Blessed 
Virgin Mary. These same privileges may also, ina sense, 
be conceived as positive, in so far, namely, as they con- 
stitute her an ideal human being and consist in a series of 
special graces; but essentially they are negative, because 
they denote the absence of some defect (priwatio, oré- 
pyois). 

Our Lady’s positive privileges, properly so called, are: 
(1) secondary mediatorship and (2) hyperdulic venerabil- 


ity. 


{20 


SECTION: 
MARY’S SECONDARY MEDIATORSHIP 


I. STATE OF THE QueEsTION.—In calling the 
Blessed Virgin mediatrix we do not mean to deny 
that Jesus Christ is our sole Mediator.". The 
mediation of Mary rests entirely upon that of her 
Divine Son and would be utterly ineffective with- 
out it. 


a) Christ, who is our sole and natural Mediator, ob- 
tained the power of mediation for His Blessed Mother 
by His death on the Cross. Hence to acknowledge Mary 
as our mediatrix does not detract from the mediatorship 
of Jesus, as most Protestants allege, but confirms that 
dogma and leads to a higher estimation of it. As the 
fatherhood of God loses nothing through the co-exist- 
ence with it of an earthly fatherhood, and as the sov- 
ereignty of mundane princes does not detract from, but 
rather emphasizes and confirms the dominion of the 
almighty Ruler of heaven and earth, so the derived me- 
diatorship of the Blessed Virgin Mary does not derogate 
from, but adds new lustre to, that of her Divine Son. 
The former is subordinate to the latter as an instrumental 
to a principal cause, and it stands to reason that the 
mediatorial operation of Christ increases in the same 
measure in which it employs the agency of mediate or. 
instrumental causes and endows these with efficiency. 


1Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, Pp. 5 sqq. 
121 


i222  MARY’S SPECIAL; PREROGATIVES 


b) This must be our guiding principle in defining the 
mediatorship of Mary. Unfortunately, theologians, 
ascetic writers, and preachers have not always used due 
caution in this matter. Some have attributed to the 
Blessed Virgin Mary certain honorary titles which are apt 
to obscure the dogmatic teaching of the Church in regard 
to the sole mediatorship of Our Lord. We are perfectly 
willing to allow for rhetorical exaggeration; but zeal for 
the honor of the Blessed Virgin should not lead theo- 
logians to neglect their plain duty of safeguarding the 
Person and the work of the Redeemer. 

The following three propositions may serve as guiding 
principles in this matter: 

a) Jesus Christ is our sole Mediator per se. 

8) The mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is en- 
tirely secondary and subordinate to that of her Divine 
Son. 

y) Since, however, Mary is the Mother of God, her 
mediatorship transcends that of all the angels and saints 
and consequently constitutes an altogether unique priv- 
ilege. 

c) In consonance with these principles Fathers and 
theologians very properly style our Lady liberatrix, salva- 
trix, reparatrix, restauratrix, reconciliatrix, and co- 
operatrix or socia Redemptoris. But it would be wrong 
to call her redemptrix, because this title obscures the im- 
portant truth that she herself was redeemed through the 
merits of Jesus Christ by what theologians technically 
term preredemption.? Even the title coredemptrix had 
better be avoided as misleading. The titles redemptrix 
and coredemptrix were never applied to the Blessed Vir- 
gin before the sixteenth century; they are the invention of 


2V. supra, p. 41. 


HER SECONDARY) MEDIATORS HIP. 134 - 


comparatively recent writers (Castelplanio, Faber, P. 
Minges, O. F. M.,° and others). 

There is another class of honorary titles sometimes 
applied to Mary, which imply the exercise of priestly 
functions, e. g., sacerdotissa, consacerdotissa, or high 
priestess. These, too, should be avoided, for the Blessed 
Virgin was not commissioned to perform sacerdotal func- 
tions, nor did she ever claim hierarchic rights. At the 
most we might call her Deaconess of Christ (diaconissa 
Christi), because she ministered to our Divine Saviour 
in the work of Redemption and humbly professed her- 
self “a handmaid of the Lord.”* The safest course 
is to follow the approved usage of the Church (e. g., in the 
“Salve Regina” and the Litany of Loreto), which 
agrees with that of the Fathers and all sober-minded 
Scholastics, and to interpret occasional exaggerations and 
symbolic appellations in accordance with the dogmatic 
teaching of the Church. 

d) The term which most appropriately and compre- 
hensively describes our Blessed Lady’s part in the Re- 
demption is undoubtedly mediatrix, which is sanctioned 
by primitive Christian usage and embodies all that can 
be said on the subject. 


2. Docmatic Proor.—The Blessed Virgin 
Mary deserves to be called by the ancient tradi- 
tional title of mediatrix for two reasons. First, 
because she co-operated in a unique manner in 
the Redemption, and secondly, because she is 
our powerful intercessor in Heaven. 

8 Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae Specialis, Vol. I, p. 204, Munich, 


1got. 
4Luke I, 38, 


9 


124. MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 
a) By voluntarily assuming the office of Dei- 
para, Mary made possible the Incarnation and 
consequently our Redemption. The importance 
of this fact is pointed out by St. Jerome: “After 
the Virgin conceived in her womb and gave birth 
to her Son, the curse was wiped out; death [came 
upon the human race] through Eve, life through 
Mary.”® St. Ambrose teaches that the sanctifi- 
cation of John the Baptist in his mother’s womb 
was due to the mediatorship of Mary.°® 
The Blessed Virgin, furthermore, incalculably 
advanced the salvation of mankind by her virtu- 
ous life. As virgin, mother, and wife she fur- 
nishes a brilliant example of all virtues. The 
female sex in particular is indebted to her for its 
liberation from the contemptible state into which 
it had fallen. We can form an idea of the moral 
value of her life if we consider what would prob- 
ably be the condition of the human family and 
civil society in general without her. The welfare 
of both family and State depends on the purity 
of woman. Millions of men as well as women 
owe the victory they have gained over the demon 


5 “ Postquam vero Virgo concepit processus exstitit, ut ad saluta- 


in utero et peperit Filium, soluta 
maledictio est; mors per Evam, viia 


per Mariam.” (Ep. ad Eustoch., 
22.) 
6In Luc., II, 29: “Non enim 


sola familiaritas est causa quod diu 
mansit, sed etiam tanti vatis pr ofec- 
tus. Nam sit primo ingressu tanius 


tionem Mariae exsultaret infans in 
utero, vepleretur Spiritu Sancio 
mater infantis, quantum putamus 
usu tanti temporis sanctae Mariae 
addidisse praesentiam? ”’ Other 
texts quoted by Schaefer, Die Got- 
tesmutter in der Hl. Schrift, pp. 
214 sqd- 


HER SECONDARY MEDIATORSHIP. (1254 


of impurity to the example of her who is the 
ideal virgin and mother. | 

Lastly, the Blessed Virgin may be said after 
a fashion to have co-operated in the atonement, 
because she formed the Divine Victim in her 
chaste womb, prepared Him for the slaughter, 
and, standing beneath the Cross, offered Him up 
for the salvation of mankind. This fact justifies 
the attribution to her of the honorary title of 
diacona sacrifict (ndopos), The spiritual mar- 
tyrdom which she suffered at the foot of the Cross 
earned for her the twofold title of “Queen of 
Mattyrs ° and “Help of Christians.’ Uhis 
thought deserves to be developed a little more 
fully. 

We need but consider Mary’s ardent love for 
her Divine Son, the excruciating tortures He 
suffered, and the terrible blasphemies to which 
she was compelled to listen, to appreciate the 
_ agony that pierced her soul during our Lord’s 

‘dolorous passion and death. Simeon’s prophecy: 
“A sword shall pierce thy soul’ * was so literally 
fulfilled under the Cross that St. Bernardine of 
Siena was able to say without exaggeration: 
“The pain suffered by the Blessed Virgin was so 


intense that if it were divided among her fellow- 


_ creatures, they would all die on the spot. The 
_ Blessed Virgin Mary, standing beneath the 


7 Luke _ IJI,-.35. 


126 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


Cross, suffered all this for us, and thus became 
our mother and was declared to be such by her 
crucified Son Himself.” ® It is the teaching of 
many Scholastics since St. Anselm that our dying 
Saviour, when He uttered the memorable words: 
‘Woman, behold thy son.... Behold thy 
mother,” ® committed His Blessed Mother to the 
entire human race in the person of St. John, and 
appointed her the spiritual mother of all His 
brethren. Bishop Schaefer interprets this touch- 
ing scene as follows: “Mary... stands at 
the foot of the Cross not merely as the mother 
of her dying Son, but as the mother of Him who 
is the Redeemer of mankind. Hence the Son, 
speaking in His capacity as Messias, addresses her 
as ‘Woman.’ The time when, according to the 
prediction of the Protevangelium, the ‘seed’ of the 
woman (taking the term in the sense of an indi- 
vidual person) was to crush the head of the 
‘serpent,’ is at hand. But we also observe how at 
the very same moment the ‘serpent’ crushes the 
heel of this ‘seed,’ in that Christ dies through the 
very instrumentality of that sacred manhood by 
which we are redeemed. Beneath the Cross 
stands, among others, the mother of this one 


8“ Tantus fuit dolor Virginis, ut Filio declarata.” (Serm., 


si in omnes creaturas divideretur, 


omnes subito perirent: haec omnia eon see Schaefer, op. cit., pp. 170 


61;) art.) 
3, C 2.) On the prophecy of Sim- 


B. Virgo Maria stans sub cruce pro 
nobis passa est, ita ut et mater no- 
stra sit facta et ut talis a crucifixo 


sqq. (English ed. pp. 180 sqq.). 
9John XIX, 26 sq. 


HER SECONDARY MEDIATORSHIP, 127 


‘seed,’ who is Christ—she, the woman whom the 
Proto-Gospel had already pointed out to hu- 
manity both as the mother of Jesus and the new 
Eve or mother of all those to be endowed with 
supernatural life... . And henceforth Mary 
receives her spiritual ‘seed.’ Christ’s words: 
‘Behold thy son,’ must be interpreted in accord- 
ance with this idea. Coming from the Mes- 
sias, it is a message of salvation for all the faith- 
ful who gather under the Cross. Of all the 
Apostles called by Jesus, ... only one, ‘the 
disciple whom Jesus loved,’ followed Him to the 
Cross, thus representing those that were to be 
saved and for whom, as a price, the Precious 
Blood was shed.” *° 

We can show by still another argument that 
Mary’s sublime office of Deipara destined her to 
be the spiritual mother and consequently the 
mediatrix of all Christians. | 

a) As the antithesis of Eve, Mary is the 
“mother of all the living” in a manner similar to 
that in which her Divine Son, the ‘‘second Adam,” 
who crushed the serpent’s head, is the spiritual 
leader of all those whom He has redeemed by 
His passion and death. Eve was the mother of 
perdition for all men (anua mortis) ; Mary must 
consequently, e contrario, be the mother of salva- 


10 Op. cit., pp. 238 sq. (English Comment. de B. Virgine Maria, 
edition, p. 251). Cfr. Bucceroni, pp. 178 sqq. 


128 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


tion for all (ianwa vitae). Or, in the words of St. 
Irenzus, “As Eve . . . was through her disobe- 
dience the cause of death to herself and the entire 
human race,so Mary . . . through her obedience 
was the source of salvation to herself and the 
whole human race.” ** The same writer says 
elsewhere: “If the former [Eve] was disobe- 
dient to God, the latter [Mary] was persuaded to 
obey Him, in order that the Virgin Mary might be 
the advocate of the virgin Eve.” 12. Bardenhewer 
comments on this passage as follows: “Where 
the Latin translation has advocata, the Greek text 
most probably had wapé«Ayros, The term means 
causa salutis and has become memorable by being 
incorporated into the liturgy of the Church (advo- 
cata nostra).” ** 

B) St. Paul teaches that we become spiritual 
brethren of Christ by Baptism.'* If this is true, 
then those who are baptized are e€0 ipso also spirit- 
ual children of Mary. 

vy) The Redemption was conditioned upon the 
consent of the Blessed Virgin to become the 
mother of God. The physical birth of our Sa- 
viour meant the moral regeneration of all man- 
_ kind. Consequently Mary became our spiritual 


11 Adv. Haer., III, 22, 4. 14 Rom. VIII, 29; Heb. II, 11, 
12 Adv. Haer., V, 19, 1. a7; ctr. Matth, XXVIII, 3:6; John 
13 Geschichte der altkirchlichen XX, 17. 

Literatur, Vol. I, p. 521, Freiburg 

1902. 


HER SECONDARY MEDIATORSHIP 129 


mother when she consented to become the mother ~ 
of God. | i 

5) The ideal woman must be conceived as shar- 
ing in the Saviour’s affection for all men. Mary 
is the spiritual mother of mankind also through 
the love she bears for all.”° 

b) Our Lady is furthermore the mediator of 
mankind in Heaven, where she effectively inter- 
cedes for the Church as a whole and for ea¢h in- 
dividual Christian in particular. 

«) This belief dates back to primitive times 
and is exemplified by many pictures found in 
the Roman catacombs.® The ‘“Memorare,’ 
often erroneously ascribed to St. Bernard, is a 
medieval pendant of the famous «avev mapaxdyrixos 
of the Greek Church.” To form a correct idea 
of the nature of Mary’s celestial intercession we 
must remember that it differs essentially, and 
not only in degree, from the heavenly inter pellatio 
Christi.18 Our Lord intercedes for us as the royal 
High Priest, Mary asa loving mother. Their in- 
tercession differs both as to nature and power in 
precisely the same way in which the Godman 
(cévOpwmos) differs from the Deipara (%07¢x0s), 

8) The intercession of the Blessed Virgin is 
naturally far more powerful than that of the other 


15 These considerations are de- 16Cfr. Thos. J. Shahan, The 


veloped by St. Bernard. Cfr. B. 
Haeusler, De Mariae Plenitudine 
Gratiae secundum S§., Bernardum, 
Frib. Helv. rogo1. 4 


Blessed Virgin im the Catacombs, 
Baltimore 1892. 
i7 Cfr. Ballerini, Sylloge, I, 481. 
18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, 
pp. 134 saa. 


130 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


saints, for while they are friends of God, she is 
His Mother. “She is the mediator between us 
and Christ,” says St. Bonaventure, “even as 
Christ is the mediator between us and God.” 
iB or this reason, too, her mediation is universal, 
whereas that of the Angels and Saints is limited 
in scope. From this point of view there is justifi- 
cation in the probable, though not strictly theolog- 
ical opinion of St. Alphonsus de’ Liguori, so hotly 
contested by Muratori, that our Divine Saviour 
bestows His graces on mankind through His 
Blessed Mother, who may therefore be truly 
called “dispensatrix omnium gratiarum.”’ It is 
in this same sense that St. Bernard refers to 
her as the “uberrimus gratiarum aquaeductus,”’ 
and Suarez says: ‘Therefore the Church prays 
more frequently and, as it were, in a higher man- 
ner to the Blessed Virgin Mary than to the other 
saints.” °° St. Bernardine of Siena teaches that 
“every grace which is communicated to this 
world has a threefold origin: it flows from God 
to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, and from the 
Virgin to us.”?* In the light of this probable 
teaching, (which cannot, however, be positively 


19 “ Ista est beata virgo, quae me- 
diatrix est inter nos et Christum, 
sicut Christus inter nos et Deum.’ 


(Comment. in Quatuor Libros Sent., 


TIP Sis.) 3) pn, arte mengim ye.) 
20De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 

23, sect. 2, n. 5: ‘“* Bt ideo ecclesia 

et frequentius et altiori quodam 


modo orat ad Virginem quam ad 
reliquos sanctos.”’ 

21“ Omnis gratia, quae huic sae- 
culo communicatur, triplicem habet 
processum: nam a Deo in Christum, 
a Christo in Virginem, a Virgine in 
nos ordinatissime dispensatur.” 
(Quoted by Leo XIII in his En- 
cyclical Letter of Sept. 8th, 1894.) 


HER) SECONDARY MEDIATORSHIP |) 131 


proved from the Fathers),”” we must judge the 
titles applied to the Blessed Virgin in the Litany 
of Loreto and also certain rather extravagant 
eulogies that occur in the writings of the Fathers. 
It must always be borne in mind (1) that the dis- 
pensation of graces through the agency of our 
Lady is not a necessary condition of salvation but 
a free divine ordinance, and (2) that the manner 
by which she obtains graces for us is simply and 
solely her maternal intercession, based upon the 
merits of Jesus Christ. 

A Catholic may confidently ask Mary for her 
powerful intercession without ever entertain- 
ing the foolish apprehension that there is danger | 
of offending Christ by addressing Him through 
His Blessed Mother. The dogmatic teaching 
of the Church is too clear to allow any intelligent 
Catholic to believe that the Blessed Virgin is 
able to accomplish anything without her Son. 
In its last analysis, therefore, every prayer ad- 
dressed to Our Lady is addressed to Christ, 2. e., 
God. 

y) In this as in so many other things the 
Church herself carefully guides the faithful both 
by word and example. She directs her liturgical 
prayers sometimes to the tri-une God, sometimes 
to Jesus Christ, and then again to the Blessed 
Virgin Mary, but invariably emphasizes her 
belief in Christ as the sole Mediator by conclud- 


22 Cfr. Petavius, De Incarnatione, XIV, 9, 8. 


132. MARY’S SPECIAL: PREROGATIVES 


ing with the words: “through Christ our Lord.” *° 
Despite the forbearance with which she tolerates 
certain excesses and extravagances,”* the Church 
will never allow an exaggerated cult of the Vir- 
gin to obscure the dignity and majesty of Christ. 
This is plainly apparent from the condemnation 
of a certain novel representation of the Madonna 
and Child called “Domina Christi,’ and the re- 


jection of the new-fangled title “Queen of the 


Heart of Jesus.” *° 


READINGS: — P. Ventura, La Madre di Dio Madre degli 
Uomini, 2d ed., Rome 1885.— *A. Nicolas, La Viérge Marie et 
le Plan Divin, Nouvelles Etudes Philosophiques sur le Chvristia- 
nisme, 4 vols., Paris 1852-61.—Lapale, Marie Immaculée et la 
Femme Chrétienne daprés le Plan Divin, Paris 1881.— J. Korber, 
Maria im System der Heilsdkonomie, Ratisbon 1883.—L. W. 
Wornhart, Maria die wunderbare Mutter Gottes und der Men- 
schen, Innsbruck 1896.— Terrien, S. J.. La Mére de Dieu et la 
Mére des Hommes d’aprés les Péres et la Théologie, 4 vols., Paris 
1900 sqq.—*Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutier in der Hl. Schrifi, 
2nd ed., pp. 145 saqq., 209 sqq., Miinster 1900 (English ed., New 
York 1913, pp. 153 sdq., 220 sqq.). 


23 Per Christum Dominum no- Blessed Virgin cfr. Thos. Esser, 


stvum, 

24 On “ Catholic Excesses in De- 
votion to the Blessed Virgin’ see 
the admirable chapter in Cardinal 
Newman’s Letter addressed to Dr. 
Pusey on the occasion of his Eiren- 
icon, A. D. 1864 (Certain Difficul- 
ties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic 
Teaching Considered, Vol. II, pp. 
89-118, London 1907). 

25 Decree of the S. Congr. of the 
Holy Office, Feb. 28, 1875. The 
text of this decree may be read in 
the Irish Ecclesiastical Record for 
April, 1875. Cfr. Newman, op. cit., 
II, 169 sq.— On the Rosary of the 


‘with an 


O. P., U. L. Frauen Rosenkranz, 
Paderborn 1889; De Buscher, Le 
Rosaire de Marie, Bruges 1901; H. 
Thurston, S. J., in the Catholic En- 
cyclopedia, Vol. XIII, pp. 184-187, 
extensive bibliography. 
Certain devotional abuses that have 
arisen in the South of Europe are 
severely censured by Bishop Bono- 
melli of Cremona in his work, I] 
Culto Religioso, Difetti e Abusi, 
Cremona 1905, recently translated 
into English under the title, On Re- 
ligious Worship and Some Defects 
in Popular Devotions. 


SECTION 2 


THE CULT OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN 


1. DEFINITION OF TERMS.—Worship or devo- 
tion (cultus) to some person, idea or thing 1 may 
be religious or profane, absolute or relative. 
It always comprises three separate and distinct 
acts: 

a) An act of intellectual assent to the vener- 
ability of the person, idea or object which is the 
object of worship; 

b) An act of the will by which the theoretical 
judgment becomes practical; 

c) An external act giving expression to the in- 
ternal sentiment. 

The formal object of every act of religious 
worship is the supernatural dignity, excellence or 
perfection of the person, idea or thing worship- 
ped. Hence we may distinguish different kinds 
of worship according to the various species or de- 
grees of perfection inherent in the persons, ideas 
or things themselves. 


1Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, between the formal and the material 
p. 278. object of religious worship in.gen- 

2 On the distinction between abso- eral, see Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
lute and relative worship, and that pp. 279 sa. 


133 


rea, MARY SORE LAR PREROGA TIVES 


The absolute worship we owe to the increate 
majesty of God and to the Godman Jesus Christ, 
and which is called latreutic or divine worship 
(adoration), differs essentially from that due to 
any creature. When directed to a creature, 
latreutic adoration (cultus latriae) is called idol- 
atry (idololatria). 

The worship which we owe to specially en- 
dowed creatures, such as the angels and saints, 
is technically termed dulia. The highest form of 
dulia is due to the Blessed Virgin Mary, because 
she transcends all other creatures by her unique 
dignity as Mother of God. Theologians are 
wont to call this special worship hyperdula. 
Some even hold that there is a specific difference 
between it and the ordinary worship paid to the 
saints. In making this distinction they do not, 
of course, lose sight of the essential difference be- 
tween the hyperdulic devotion rendered to our 
Lady and the latreutic adoration due to God 
alone.® 

2. THE BLESSED VirGIN Mary 1s ENTITLED 
TO A SPECIAL KinD OF WORSHIP SUPERIOR TO 
THAT PAID TO THE OTHER SAINTS.—In demon- 
strating this proposition we must distinguish be- 
tween the quaestio iuris and the quaestio factt. 


3 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., «ima enim reverentia debetur homint 
2a) 2ae; au. (103; are) "4, ad 2: ex affinitate, quam habet ad Deum.” 
“Hyperdulia est potissima species (Cfr. De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., 
duliae communiter sumptae: ma-_ disp. 35, sect. 2.) 


THE CULT OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN 135 


a) First as to the quaestio iuris. The higher 
the dignity and holiness of a person, the greater 
is his or her claim to our respect and veneration. 
Now, the dignity of the Blessed Virgin, morally 
considered, is immeasurably high * and her sanc- 
tity commensurate with the fulness of grace with 
which God has endowed her. Consequently, she 
is entitled to a worship which, while essentially be- 
low that due to God, exceeds the ordinary dulia 
exhibited to the Saints in precisely the same meas- 
ure in which, as Scordxos, Mary outranks the angels 
and saints. This is precisely what is called hyper- 
dula. 

From the fact that Mary deserves such a high degree 
of veneration, it may be inferred that devotion to her is a 
religious duty. It is difficult to conceive how a Catholic 
could really love Jesus without honoring His mother.* 
By a kind of psychological necessity habitual neglect of 
Mary leads to contempt of her Divine Son. This 
truth is clearly exemplified in the history of Protestantism. 
The Church had good reasons for linking the “ Hail 
Mary ” with the “ Our Father,” for enriching the ecclesi- 
astical calendar with numerous beautiful festivals in 
honor of Our Lady, and for exhorting the faithful to 
pray to her often and fervently by megs the Rosary 
and other special devotions.’ 


b) The quaestio facti offers no greater difficul- 
ties than the quaestio iuris. Christians have at 


4V. supra, pp. 16 sqq. 7 Cfr. Benedict XIV, De Festis 
5V. supra, pp. 24 saqq. D. N. Iesu Christi et B. Mariae 
6Cfr. Newman, Difficulties of Virginis, Venice 1767. 

Anglicans, Vol. II, pp. 82 sda. 


136 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


all times since the institution of the Church 
rendered to Mary that peculiar kind of worship 
which is now technically known as hyperdulia. 


During the first three centuries, it is true, Mary did 
hot occupy such a prominent place in the thoughts and 
prayers of the faithful. Her glory was overshadowed by 
that of her Divine Son. We need not wonder at this ; for 
the Godman Himself had first to be generally acknowl- 
edged and adored before Mary could come into the wor- 
ship due to her as His mother.® 

Towards the end of the sixth century a sect of Arabian 
women went so far astray as to adore Mary and to offer 
her cakes, which were consumed at feasts similar to 
the thesmophoria held in honor of the pagan goddess 
Demeter.? This aberration was condemned by St. Epi- 
phanius, who declared that Mary, though “a select ves- 
sel” exalted above all the Saints, is not entitled to divine 
honors, » 


Soon after Constantine the Great had led forth 
the infant Church from the catacombs, devotion to 
our Lady began to spread. The cities of Nicaea 
(where the first general council was held) and 
Byzantium (Constantinople), the new capital 
of the empire, were officially dedicated to the 
Blessed Virgin by the Emperor Constantine. His 
mother St. Helena erected the first churches in 


8“ Sicut gloriam in Filio prae- 
cessit humilitas, sic matris humili- 
tatem, quae redundabat a Filio, est 


subsecuta sublimitas,’” says Abbot 
Guibert (De Laude S§. Mariae, 
CG.) 420% 


® On this sect, called Collyridians 
(from Ko\XUpta, small cakes) cfr. 
Hergenrother, Kirchengeschichte, 
Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 304, Freiburg 
1902; Wernsdorf, Dissert. de Colly- 
ridianorum Secta, Vitemb. 1745. 


THE CULT OF THE BLESSED) VIRGIN | 137 


honor of Our Lady at Bethlehem and Nazareth. | 
In Rome, Pope Liberius (352-366) built the 
famous basilica known as Santa Maria Mag-. 
giore. The Third Ecumenical Council of Ephe- 
sus (A. D. 431) held its sessions in a temple ded- 
icated to the Geordéxos, Recent discoveries in 
the catacombs show that devotion to the Blessed 
Virgin is as old as the Church. Her image ap- 
pears at the beginning of the second century in 
the catacombs of St. Priscilla, where she is rep- 


resented in a sitting posture with the Divine In- 


fant in her arms, facing the prophet Isaias who 
carries a manuscript roll in his left hand and 
points to a star with his right.*° 


READINGS : — St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 5.— *Suarez, 
De Incarnatione, disp. 22, sect. 3— Petavius, De Incarnatione, 
XIV, 8 sqq.— B. Plazza, Christianorum in Sanctos Sanctorumque 
Reginam Propensa Devotio, Palermo 1547.— Abelly, Sentiments 
des SS. Péres touchant les Excellences et les Prérogatives de la 
Trés-Sainte Viéerge, Paris 1674—*Trombelli, Mariae Sanc- 
tissimae Vita.ac Gesta Cultusque illi Adlibitus, 6 vols., Bologna 
1761.—*Haine, De Hyperdulia, Louvain 1864.—F. A. von Leh- 
ner, Die Marienverehrung in den ersten Jahrhunderien, and ed., 
Stuttgart 1886.— *H. F. J. Liell, Die Darstellungen der allerselig- 
sten Jungfrau und Gottesgebarerin Maria auf den Kunstdenk- 
milern in den Katakomben, Freiburg 1887— Jos. Wilpert, Die 
Malereien der Katakomben Roms, 2 vols., Freiburg 1903.— S. 
Beissel, S. J., Die Verehrung unserer lieben Frau in Deutschland 
wahrend des Mittelalters, Freiburg 1896.—IpeM, Geschichte der 
Verehrung ‘Mariens in Deutschland bis zum Ende des Mittelal- 


10 Cfr. C. M. Kaufmann, Hand- of St. Callistus, pp. 67 sq., Rome 
buch der chyristlichen Archiologie, 1911; Shahan, The Blessed Virgin 
pp. 361 sq... Raderborn, 19053 in the Catacombs, Baltimore 1892. 
Scaglia-Nagengast, The Catacombs 


139) MARYS SPECIAL PREROGATIVES 


ters, Freiburg 1909.— Ipem, Geschichte der Verehrung Marias im 
16. und 17. Jahrhundert, Freiburg 1910—*B. Bartman, Christus 
ein Gegner des Marienkultus? Freiburg 1909.— Hergenrother- 
Phelan, A History of the Devotion to the Blessed Virgin in the 
First Ten Centuries. St. Louis 1880.—J. H. Newman, An Essay 
on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 12th ed., pp. 135 saqq., 
410 sqq., London 1903.—IpEem, “ A Letter Addressed to the Rev. 
E. B. Pusey, D.D., on Occasion of His Eirenicon of 1864,” in 
Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans Considered, Vol. II, pp. 
I-170, new ed., London 1907— H. G. Ganss, Mariolatry: New 
Phases of an Old Fallacy, Notre Dame, Ind., 1897—Chs. F. 
McGinnis, The Communion of Saints, pp. 1 sqq., 154 saqq., St. 
Louis 1912—H. J. Coleridge, S. J., “ English Devotion to Our 
Blessed Lady in the Olden Time,” in the American Catholic 
Quarterly Review, Vol. IV, No. 15 (July 1879). — Th. E. Bridgett, 
C. SS. R., Our Lady’s Dowry, London 1875.—B. Rohner, O. S. 
B., Veneration of the Blessed Virgin. Her Feasts, Prayers, Re- 
ligious Orders, and Sodalities. Adapted by Rev. Richard Bren- 
nan, New York 1808, new impression, ibid., 1913S. Beissel, S. J., 
Wallfahrten zu Unserer Lieben Frau in Legende und Geschichte, 
Freiburg 1913.—On representations of Our Lady in the Cata- 
combs, see A. S. Barnes, The Early Church in the Light of the 
Monuments, pp. 176-178, London 1913.— A. Lopez Pelaez, El 
Culto de Maria, Barcelona 1918.— B. J. Otten, S. J., 4 Manual 
of the History of Dogmas, Vol. Il, St. Louis 1918, pp. 415 sqq. 


Ultima in mortis hora 
Filium pro nobis ora, 
Bonam mortem impetra, 
Virgo, Mater, Domina, 


APPENDIX 


ON THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS, 
RELICS, AND IMAGES 


The worship due to the Blessed Virgin Mary 
(hyperdulia), to be rightly understood, must be 
considered in connection with the worship which 
we owe to the other Saints of God (dulia). 
This justifies the addition to Mariology of an 
appendix treating of the Worship of the Saints 
and the kindred subject of the Veneration of 
Relics and Images. 


139 
id : 


CELA PALE Rn. 


THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS 


The first and most important point to be 
noted in regard to the Catholic dogma of the wor- 
ship of the Saints is that both dulia, 1. e., the wor- 
ship we render to the Saints in general, and hyper- 
dulia, 1. e., that specific worship which we give 
to the Blessed Virgin in particular, differ formally 
and essentially from the divine worship due to 
Almighty God (atria). 

The difference between dulia (including hyper- 
dulia) and latria is as vast as the gulf that sepa- 
rates the creature from its Creator. ‘The rela- 
tion between dulia and latria, like that between 
creature and Creator, is purely analogical.’ 
Their formal objects are separate and distinct. 
The formal object of Jatria is the virtus religionis ; 
that of dulia, the virtus observantiae.? This dis- 
tinction is sufficient to disprove the odious charge, 
sometimes made against Catholics, that they adore 
the Virgin Mary and the Saints. Of its very 


1Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 2 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 
Knowability, Essence, and Attri- 2a 2ae, qu. I02 sq. 
butes, pp. 165 sqq. 


140 


oar ee 


THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS 141 


nature the worship we give to the Saints has 
nothing in common with idolatry.’ 

Dulia takes the form either of veneration or 
invocation. Veneration (veneratio) is respect 
and reverence shown to the Saints for their own 
sake. Invocation (invocatio) is calling upon 
them for help in order to advance our own welfare. 

It is to be noted, however, that invocation logically in- 
cludes, or at least presupposes, a certain respect and 
reverence for the person to whom it is directed, and 
consequently implies veneration. 

Honor and veneration are by no means synonymous 
terms and should not be employed interchangeably. 
God honors His Saints, but He does not venerate 
them. Veneration logically connotes an acknowledgment 
of the superior excellence of, and humble submission to, 
the person to whom it is exhibited. Hence the term 
dulia, from Sovdcla, i. €., service. 


The cultus duliae which we exhibit to the per- 
son of a Saint is absolute, in contradistinction to 
the merely relative worship which we give to holy 
relics and images. Another essential difference 
is that relics and images, being inanimate objects, 
may be venerated but not invoked.. “Honor or 
reverence,’ says St. Thomas of Aquin, “is due 
solely to rational creatures; those devoid of reason 
can be honored or reverenced only with respect - 
to some rational nature.” 4 


‘3 Cir. H. G. Ganss, Mariolatry: 4 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 
New Phases of an Old Fallacy, 4: “Honor seu reverentia non de- 
Notre Dame, Ind., 1897, . betur nisi rationali creaturae: crea- 


142 APPENDIX 


It is licit and useful to venerate and invoke 
the Saints and to honor their relics. This is one 
of the most ancient dogmas of the Christian 
Church. To ridicule and condemn the veneration 
of the Saints and their relics, therefore, would be 
tantamount to accusing the Primitive Church of 
idolatry. 

The Catholic teaching with regard to the wor- 
ship of the Saints is succinctly set forth in the 
subjoined thesis. 

Thesis: The Saints in Heaven are entitled to the 
cultus duliae, and we may, with profit to ourselves, 
beg them to intercede for us with God. 

This thesis embodies two distinct articles of 
faith. 

Proor OF THE First Part. The Council of 
Trent defines: ‘““The honor which is given them 
[the images] is referred to the originals which 
they represent; in such wise that, by the images 
which we kiss, and before which we un- 
cover our heads, or kneel, we adore Christ and 
venerate His Saints, whose likeness they bear.” ° 
If it is permitted to venerate the images of the 
Saints, then, a fortiori, it must be permitted to 
venerate the Saints themselves. 


turae autem insensibili non debetur 
honor vel reverentia nisi ratione 
rvationalis creaturae.” 

5“ Honos, qui eis exhibetur, 
refertur ad prototypa, quae illae 
[scil. imagines] repraesentant, tta 
ut per imagines, quas osculamur 


et coram quibus caput aperimus et 
procumbimus, Christum adoremus 
et Sanctos, quorum illae similitu- 
dinem gerunt, veneremur.” (Sess. 
XXV, De Invocatione et Venera- 
tione et Reliquiis Sanctorum, ete. 
Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 986.) 


THE WORSHIP: OF THE SAINTS 143 


a) It is true that Sacred Scripture, while it 
praises and approves the cultus of the angels,” 
says nothing about the veneration of the Saints. 
But what it says of the angels may safely be ap- 
plied to the Saints in Heaven. The Bible even 
tells us of religious veneration rendered to saintly 
persons on earth.’ 


In warning the Colossians against the “religion of 
angels,” ® St. Paul had in mind the worship of zons 
as practiced by certain Jews and Gnostics.° 

A real difficulty against our thesis seems to arise from 
Apoc. XIX, 10, where the angel appearing to St. John 
declines the adoration offered to him. “ And I fell down 
before his feet to adore him. And he saith tome: See 
thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant,’® and of thy 
brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God.” 
Rightly interpreted, however, this passage confirms rather 
than disproves the licitness of the veneration given to the 
angels. For when St. John “ fell down before his feet 
to adore ” the angel, he either believed that Christ Him- 
self stood before him, and in that case it was the angel’s 
duty to disabuse him of his error and to refuse the adora- 
tion offered; or he was aware that the apparition was an 
angel, and then he believed it to be licit and proper to 
“ fall down before his feet and adore him,” in which 
case adorare is evidently used in the sense of venerari. 
But why did the Angel decline the worship offered 


6Cfr. Ex. XXIII, 20 sqq.; Jos. TBR 370 


V, 13 sqq.; Dan. VIII, 15 sqq.; X, 8 Col. II, 18. i 
Beets LOD. Akos Cir.’ Matth. 9 Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 
XVIII, 10, etc. 28. 

7E. g., to Elias (3 Kings XVIII, 10 Conservus, givdovdos. 


- 37 sqq.) and Eliseus (4 Kings II, 


144 APPENDIX 


to him? He gives the reason himself. Because St. 
John, being an Apostle of Christ, was his “ fellow ser- 
vant,” the equal, as a divine messenger, of the angels, and 
under no obligation to humiliate himself before them 
(dulia = servitus). 

Paul and Barnabas restrained the people of Lystra 
from honoring them, because the worship offered was 
idolatrous. Acts XIV, 10 sqq.: “And when the mul- 
titudes had seen what Paul had done, they lifted up their 
voice in the Lycaonian tongue, saying: The gods are 
come down to us in the likeness of men; and they called 
Barnabas Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury, because he was 
chief speaker. The priest also of Jupiter that was be- 
fore the city, bringing oxen and garlands before the gate, 
would have offered sacrifice with the people.” 


b) Devotion to the angels, especially the guar- 
dian angels, seems to be older than worship 
of the Saints. But this is due entirely to 
historic conditions. The infant Church had 
first to beget Saints before she could honor them. 
It is easy to see, too, why the martyrs were the 
first Saints tobe venerated. The early Christians 
regarded martyrdom as the climax of Christian 
virtue. To lay down one’s life for the faith was 
to obtain forgiveness of all sins, immediate en- 
trance to Heaven, and the privilege of being for- 
ever identified with the fortunes of the Church 
on earth. The graves of the martyrs in course 
of time became altars, and before long the venera- 
tion of other Saints who were not martyrs, espe- 


THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS 145 


cially the Blessed Virgin Mary, grew more popu- | 
Jari? 


Tertullian testifies that in his day the memory of the 
martyrs was celebrated every year.*? St. Cyprian says: 
“We celebrate the sufferings of the martyrs and their 
days by annual commemorations.’ ** St. Augustine 
vigorously defends the ancient Christian practice of 
venerating the martyrs. “The Christian populace,” he 
says in his treatise against Faustus the Manichean, 
“celebrates the memory of the martyrs with religious 
solemnity, . . . but we rear altars not to any martyr, but 


_ to the God of martyrs Himself, though in memory of the 


martyrs. For what priest, standing before the altar 
where their sacred bodies lie, has ever said: We offer 
[sacrifice] to thee, © Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? 
What is offered, is offered to God, who has crowned the 
martyrs, near the memorial places of those whom He 
has crowned, that a stronger affection may arise from the 
places themselves to intensify our love both for those 
whom we can imitate and for Him by whose help we are 


_able to imitate them. We venerate the martyrs, there- 


fore, with that worship of love and association by which 
the Saints of God are venerated in this life, . .. all the 
more devoutly, because they have securely won their bat- 
tles. . . . But we worship God alone by that cult which 
in Greek is called Aarpefa, a term for which there is no 
equivalent in Latin, as it means a certain servitude which 
in its proper sense is due only to the Divinity.” ™* 


12 Cfr.. J.P. Kirsch; The. Doc- 12 De Corona, c. 3: “ Oblationes 


trine of the Communion of Saints 
in the Ancient Church, pp. 18 sqa., 
736 <Ssqd., 212 saq.,‘ London rorr; 
Fr. X. Kraus, Roma Sotteranea, 
pp. 68 sqq., 460 sqq., 547 Ssd4q., 
Freiburg 1901. 


pro natalibus annua die facimus.” 
LSU PUN 2Ou's ede Etat vela un ihe. 
“ Martyrum passiones et dies an- 
niversariad commemoratione celebra- 
mus.” 
14 Contra Faustum Manich., XX, 


146 APPENDIX 


A solid proof for the reasonableness and utility of the 
pious practice of venerating the Saints is found in the 
festivals and liturgies, the songs and hymns, the homi- 
lies and sermons dedicated to them, and the churches and 
chapels erected in their honor from the earliest times 
both in the East and in the West. 


PROOF OF THE SECOND Part. The Council of 
Trent declares the invocation of the Saints to be 
a “good and useful” practice: “It is good and 
useful to invoke them supplicatingly and to take 
refuge to their prayers, power, and help to ob- 
tain benefits from God through His Son Jesus 
Christ, our Lord, who is the sole Redeemer and 
DAVIOUT 

An early opponent of this doctrine was Vigilantius, a 
priest in Gaul (A. D. 402), who claimed that to invoke 
the Saints was a pagan custom. His objections were 


refuted by St. Jerome. In modern times the Protestant 
denial of the dogma prompted the Tridentine Council to 
dilectionis et societatis, quo et in 


hac vita coluntur sancti homines 
Dei, ... sed illos tanto devotius, 


* 21: “Populus Christianus memo- 
rias martyrum religiosad solemni- 
tate concelebrat,... ita tamen ut 


nulli mariyrum, sed ipst Deo mar- 
tyrum, quamvis in memoriis mar- 
tyrum, constituamus altaria. Quis 
enim antistitum in locis sanctorum 
corporum assistens aliari aliquando 
dixit: Offerimus tibi, Petre aut 
Paule aut Cypriane? Sed quod 
offertur, offertur Deo, qui martyres 
coronavit, apud memorias eorum, 
quos coronavit, ut ex ipsorum loco- 
rum admonitione maior affectus ex- 
surgat ad acuendam caritatem et in 
tllos, quos imitari possumus, et in 
illum, quo adiuvante possumus. 
Colimus ergo martyres eo cultu 


quanto securius post certamina su- 
perata. ... At illo cultu, qui graece 
Aatpeia dicitur —latine uno verbo 
dict non potest, quum sit quaedam 


_ proprie divinitati debita servitus — 


nec colimus nec colendum docemus 
nist unum Deum.” 

15“ Bonum atque utile esse sup- 
pliciter eos invocare et ob beneficia 
impetranda a Deo per Filium eius 
Iesum Christum D. N., qui solus 
Redemptor et Salvator est, ad eorum 
orationes, opem auxiliumque con- 
fugere.”’ (Sess. XXV. Cfr, Den- 
zinger-Bannwart, n. 984.) 


THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS 147 


define it formally as follows: 


“Those are guilty of im- 


piety who deny that the Saints who enjoy eternal felicity 
in Heaven, are to be invoked, or who assert either that 
they do not pray for men or that to invoke them in order 
that they may pray for us, even individually, is idolatry ; 
or that it is against the Word of God and contrary to the 
honor of Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God 
and men, or that it is foolish to pray by word of mouth 


or mentally to those who reign in Heaven. 


9716 


a) The licitness of the invocation of the angels 
and Saints can be both directly and indirectly 


proved from Holy Scripture. 


a) The indirect argument runs as follows: 
According to Sacred Scripture God frequently 
heeded the intercession of just and holy men while 
they were still living on earth. Now, the inter- 
cession of the angels and Saints, who have 
reached their final goal, is more powerful and 
effective than that of men, no matter how holy, 
who are still in danger of committing sin. If 
these can be effectively asked for their interces- 
sion, the same must a fortiors be true of the 


16“ Illos vero, qui negant, Sanc- 
tos aeterna felicitate in coelo fru- 
entes invocandos esse, aut qui 
asserunt, vel illos pro hominibus 
non orare vel eorum, ut pro nobis 
etiam singulis orent, invocationem 
esse idololatriam, vel pugnare cum 
Verbo Dei adversarique honori unius 
mediatoris Det et -hominum Tlesw 
Christi, vel stultwm esse in coelo 


B, angels and Saints, who are friends of God in a 


regnantibus voce vel mente suppli- 
care, impie sentire.’ (Denzinger- 
Bannwart 1. c.) For a refutation 
of these Protestant objections see 
the Catechismus Romanus, P. III, 
cap. 2, n. 10-14 (Donovan’s Eng- 
lish translation, Catechism of the 
Council of Trent, Dublin 1908, pp. 
318 sqq.). 


148 APPENDIX 


higher sense because of their righteousness and 
glory. | 


The major premise of this syllogism can be proved by 
innumerable examples. Thus, for instance, Abraham 
prayed for Sodom, and God heard him.17. Moses prayed 
for his people, and the Lord listened to his supplication.*® 
Job interceded for his friends, and Yahweh blessed 
them."® St. Paul prayed for two hundred threescore and 
sixteen who were in danger of shipwreck, and “every 
soul got safe to land.” *° 

The minor premise is thus established by St. Jerome 
against Vigilantius: “If the Apostles and martyrs, 
while yet in the body, and in need of being solicitous for 
themselves, were able to pray for others, how much more 
[may they pray for others now] after having obtained 
their crown, won the victory and triumphed? One man, 
Moses, besought God for forgiveness for six hundred 
armed men; and Stephen, the follower of his Master and 
the first martyr in Christ, prayed for his persecutors. 
Will they be less powerful now that they are with Christ? 
The Apostle Paul says that he saved two hundred and 
seventy-six souls in the boat. Can we assume that after 
his death, when he began to be with Christ, his mouth 
was sealed and he was unable to utter a word in behalf of 
those who throughout the world accepted his Gospel? ” ** 

17 Gen. XVIII, 23 sqaq. bus armatorum impetrat a Deo 

LS UN NL ers veniam; et Stephanus, imitator Do- 

19 Job XLII, 8. mini sui et primus martyr in Christo, 


20 Acts XXVII, 34 sad. pro persecutoribus veniam depreca- 
21 Contra Vigilant., n. 6: “Si tur. Et postquam cum Christo esse 


Apostoli et martyres adhuc in cor- 
pore constituti possunt orare pro 
ceteris, quando pro se adhuc debent 
esse solliciti, quanto magis post 
coronas, victorias et triumphos? 
Unus homo Moyses sexcentis milli- 


coeperunt, minus valebunt? Paulus 
Apostolus ducentas septuaginta sex 
sibi dicit in navi animas condonatas, 
et postquam resolutus esse coepertt 
cum Christo, tunc ora clausurus est 
et pro his, qui in toto orbe ad suum 


THE WORSHIP Of THE SAINTS 149 _ 


It should not be objected that the Saints have no knowl- . 
edge of earthly affairs; for our Divine Saviour Him- 
self says: “ There shall be joy before the angels of God 
upon one sinner doing penance.” ”? . 


8B) The direct argument is based upon those 
passages of Sacred Scripture in which men are 
described as successfully invoking the angels and 
saints. 


Thus the Archangel Raphael said to the saintly Tobias: 
“When thou didst pray with tears, ... I offered thy 
prayer to the Lord.” ?? St. John beheld “ golden vials 
full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints.” 
“And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the 
saints ascended up before God from the hand of the 
angel.” ?* Judas Machabzeus, in “a dream worthy to be 
believed, whereby he rejoiced them all,” saw the high 
priest Onias and the prophet Jeremias, (both of whom 
were dead), “ pray for all the people of the Jews” Cir. 
2 Mach. XV, 12 sqq.: “Onias, who had been high 
priest, a good and virtuous man, ... holding up his 
hands, prayed for all the people of the Jews. And after 
this there appeared also another man, admirable for age 
and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty. 
Then Onias answering said: This is a lover of his 
brethren and of the people of Israel: this is he that 
prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, 
Jeremias the prophet of God.” If the Angels and Saints 
can help us by their intercession, we certainly do well to 
invoke them in our manifold needs. 
evangelium crediderunt, mutire non 23 Tob. XII, 12. 


poterit? ”’ 24 Apoc. V, 8; VIII, 4. 
22 Luke XV, io. = 


150 APPENDIX 


b) We can quote no explicit confirmation of 
our thesis from Tradition prior to the year 180. 
But Origen, who lived towards the close of the 
second century, and St. Hippolytus (about 222), 
teach that it is licit and profitable to invoke the 
blessed martyrs on behalf of the living and the 
dead. Numerous sepulchral inscriptions show 
that it was customary at a very early date to pray 
to the martyrs for their intercession, and likewise 
to Saints who were not martyrs.?? We find the 
dogma fully developed, both in theory and prac- 
tice, as early as the fourth century. 


St. Ambrose says: “The Angels must be honored, 

. . the martyrs must be implored, ... let us not be 
ashamed to employ them as intercessors in our infirm- 
ity.”’?° St. Chrysostom, speaking of the martyrs, says: 
“Not only on this their festival day, but on other days 
as well, let us cleave to and invoke them, and pray 
that they be our protectors, for they enjoy great con- 
fidence during this life and after death, yea, much more 
after death. For they bear the signs of Christ’s wounds, 
and when they exhibit these, they can persuade their 
King to do anything.” 27 St. Chrysostom elsewhere ad- 
monishes his hearers to work out their own salvation, 
because we “ need no intercessors with God;” but in say- 
ing this he does not mean to deny the propriety and ef- 
fectiveness of invoking the Saints, but merely wishes 

25 For more detailed information vandi sunt angeli. ... martyres ob- 
on this point see J. P. Kirsch, Die secrandi.... non erubescamus eos 
Akklamationen und Gebete der  intercessores nostrae infirmitatis ad- 


altchristlichen Grabschriften, Koln hibere.”’ 
1897. 27 Hom. de SS. Beren. et Pros- 


26De Vid., c. 9, n. 55: “Obser- doce, n. 7. 


THE WORSHIP OP THE SAINTS 151, 


to strengthen the confidence of Christians in their 
own powers, as he himself explains:** “If we do our 
share, the intercession of the Saints will profit us greatly ; 
but if we are careless and stake our hope of salvation en- 
tirely on that intercession, it will not avail us much; not 
as if the Saints possessed less power, but because we are 
our own betrayers on account of our indolence.” 2° 


c) The strong faith which devout Catholics re- 
pose in the special power of certain Saints to aid 
them in particular necessities, is based on St. 
Paul’s teaching as to the diverse functions proper 


to the different members of Christ’s mystical 
body. 


Cfr. 1 Cor. XII, 18: ‘‘ Now God hath set the members 
every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him.” 
This teaching, which was echoed by St. Augustine,®? led 
to the selection of special patron Saints for different 
cities, villages, churches, and chapels, the invocation of 
individual patrons, and of this or that particular Saint for 
certain special favors. St. Thomas *+ recommends it as 
a safe rule not to invoke the greater Saints exclusively, 
but to appeal now and then to the “ sancti minores.” 
He gives five distinct reasons for this: (1) Many Chris- 
tians harbor greater affection for some particular Saint; 


28 Chrysost., Hom. in Gen., 44, SOV Pik 7 Sion aii, (Magnan Aang. 
Merye XXXIIT, 269): ‘“ Sicut enim, dicit 


29 Additional quotations from the 
Fathers can be found in Bellarmine, 
De Beat. et Canon. Sanct., I, 109. 
The liturgical argument is well de- 


_veloped by Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. 


{il, p.. 727, Paris. 1806; cfr. also 
Kellner, Heortology, English edition, 
Pp. 203 sqq., London 1908. 


Apostolus (1 Cor. XII, 30), non 
omnes Sancti habent dona cura- 
tionum,...tta@ nec in- omnibus 
memoriis Sanctorum ista fiert voluit 
tlle, qui dividit propria unicuique 
prout vult.” 

31 Suppl., qu. 72, art. 2, ad 2, 


152 _ APPENDIX 


(2) There is need of variety, lest we grow weary in 
praying; (3) It is probable that in certain matters the 
intercession of some Saints is more powerful than that of 
others; (4) It is meet that all who have a claim to honor 
should be honored; and (5) The combined intercession 
of several Saints is of greater efficacy than that of one 
alone. 


READINGS: —*Bellarmine, De Cultu Sanctorum.— IpEM, De 
Beatificatione et Canonizatione Sanctorum.— De Lugo, De My- 
sterto Incarnationis, disp. 35, sect. 1.—Benedict XIV, De Servo- 
rum Det Beatificatione et Canonizatione, Venice 1767.— *Trom- 
belli, De Cultu Sanctorum, 6 vols., Bologna 1740 sqq.— L. Clarus, 
Verehrung der Heiligen, Trier 1870—Le Blant, Les Actes des 
Martyrs, :Paris \1882-— 1), Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chré- 
tien, Paris 1889. (Christian W orship: Its Origin and Evolution, 
translated by M. L. McClure, London 1903) —*J. P. Kirsch, Die 
Lehre von der Gemeinschaft der Heiligen im christlichen Alter- 
tum, Mainz 1900. (The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints in 
the Ancient Church. A Study in the History of Dogma, trans- 
lated by John R. M’Kee, London 1911).— E, Lucius (Prot.), Die 
Anfange des Heiligenkultus, Tibingen 1904.— Chs. F. McGinnis, 
The Communion of Saints, St. Louis 1912.— J. F. Sollier, art. 
“Communion of Saints” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, 
Pp. 171-174.— T. B. Scannell, art. “ Intercession,” in the Catholic 
Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, pp. 70-72.— Waterworth, Faith of Cath- 
olics, Vol. III, New York 1885.— A, S, Barnes, The Early Church 
in the Light of the Monuments, pp. 149-164, London 1913.—B. J. 
Otten, S. J.. 4 Manual of the fHistory of Dogmas, Vol. I, St. 
Louis 1917, pp. 449 sqq. 


——s 
ae 


CHAPTER II 


THE WORSHIP OF RELICS 


By (holy) relics we understand: (1) The bodies 
of saintly persons or any of their integrant parts, 
such as limbs, ashes, bones, etc.; (2) Objects that 
have come in physical contact with living Saints 
and are thereby sanctified (for instance, the in- 
struments wherewith a martyr has been tortured, 
the chains by which he was bound, the clothes he 
wore, objects he used). With regard to the 
last-mentioned class, however, we must make a 
limitation. Those objects only should be treated 
as holy relics the veneration of which redounds to 
a Saint’s honor. Whatever is apt to excite ridi- 
cule or disrespect must be excluded from worship. 


Relics are merely the material object of worship. The 
formal object, 7. e., the reason why they are venerated, is 
found not in the relics themselves but in the person to 
whom they belonged. In other words, the respect and 
veneration which we show to a Saint’s relics are di- 
rected towards the Saint himself. For this reason the 
worship of relics is technically termed cultus duliae rela- 
tivus. : 

153 


154 APPENDIX 


That there have been abuses in connexion with the 
veneration of relics can, unfortunately, not be denied. It 
belongs to ecclesiastical authority to remedy such abuses, 
above all by forbidding the veneration of spurious or un- 
becoming relics, wherever it has crept in. When such 
veneration is due to ignorance or credulity, or otherwise 
to good faith, though the harm is not as a rule serious, 
because the worship shown to spurious relics is really 
given to the Saint to whom they are believed to belong. 


Thesis: The veneration of relics is licit and useful. 


This thesis embodies an article of faith. 

Proof. The Seventh Ecumenical Council (Ni- 
cea, A. D. 787) condemned “those who dare to 
reject any one-of the things which are entrusted 
to the Church,—the Gospel, or the sign of the 
cross, or any pictorial representation, or the holy 
relics: ofsa martyr.” 7 The Couteil or. Prent 
enjoins bishops and pastors to instruct their 
flocks that “the holy bodies of saintly martyrs and 
others now living with Christ—which bodies were 
the living members of Christ and the temple of 
the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be 
raised unto eternal life and glorified—are to 
be venerated by the faithful, for through these 
[bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on 
men; so that they who affirm that veneration and 
honor are not due to the relics of Saints, or 


1“... qui audent.... proiicere sanctas reliquias martyris.” (Den- 
. sive evangelium sive figuram zinger-Bannwart, n. 304.) 
crucis sive imaginalem picturam sive 


THE WORSHIP OF RELICS 155 


that these and other sacred monuments are use- 
lessly honored by the faithful, . . . are wholly 
to be condemned, as the Church has already long 
since condemned and now also condemns them.” ? 


This dogmatic definition gives a succinct explanation of 
the reasons underlying the veneration of relics as prac- 
ticed in the Catholic Church. 

It may be well to add that the Church has always set 
her face against abuses in connexion with the exposition 
and translation of relics. Witness, e. g., the sixty- 
second chapter of the decrees of the Fourth Lateran 
Council, “ De Reliquiis Sanctorum.” * 


a) The practice of venerating the relics of 
saintly persons can be traced in the Old Testa- 
ment. > Cir, Ex, XID; 19:' “And. Moses: took 
Joseph’s bones with him: because he had adjured 
the children of Israel, saying: God shall visit you, 
carry out my bones from hence with you.”* 4 
Kings XIII, 21: “Some that were burying a 
man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the 
sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched 
the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life and 
stood upon his feet.” 


2Sess. XXV_  (Denzinger-Bann- torum reliquiis venerationem atque 
wart, n. 985): “ Sanctorum quoque honorem non deberi vel eas aliaque 
martyrum et aliorum cum Christo sacra monumenta a fidelibus inuti- 
viventium sancta corpora, quae viva liter honorari.... omnino damnan- 
membra fuerunt Christi et templum dos esse, prout iampridem eos 
Spiritus Sancti ab ipso ad aeternam damnavit et nunc etiam damnat Ec- 
vitam suscitanda et glorificanda, a clesia.” 
fidelibus veneranda esse, per quae 3 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 440. 


4 - mulia beneficia a Deo hominibus 4 Cfr, Ecclus. XLIX, 18. 


hel rata AY ita ut afirmantes Sanc- 


156 APPENDIX 


The New Testament in numerous passages 
illustrates the miraculous effects of relics. We 
will quote buta few: “And behold a woman who 
was troubled with an issue of blood twelve years, 
came behind him [ Jesus], and touched the hem of 
his garment. For she said within herself: Ii I 
shall touch only his garment, I shall be healed. 
But Jesus turning and seeing her, said: Be of 
good cheer, daughter, thy faith hath made thee 
whole. And the woman was made whole from 
that hour.’ ® 

The first Christians had such great confidence 
in St. Peter that they “brought forth the sick into 
the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, 
that when Peter came, his shadow at the least 
might overshadow any of them, and they might 
be delivered from their infirmities.’* By the 
hand of St. Paul “God wrought . . . more than 
common miracles, so that even there were brought 
from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and 
aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and 
the wicked spirits went out of them.” * 

Why, then, did our Lord blame the Pharisees 
for honoring and adorning the graves of the 
prophets? Matth. XXIII, 29: “Woe to you 
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, that build the 
sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monu- 
ments of the just... .” The context shows that 


5 Matth. IX, 20 saq. 6 Acts V, 15. 7 Acts XIX, 11. sq. 


THE WORSHIP OF RELICS _—s7 


He did not censure the act itself, but merely the. 
hypocritical motives by which it was inspired. 
For the Pharisees, like their fathers, persecuted 
God’s prophets and crucified the greatest one 
among them. “By building sepulchres to the 
prophets,” says St. Ambrose, “they condemned 
the deeds of their fathers; but the condemnation 
fell back upon themselves, because they imitated 
the crimes of their fathers. . . . Hence it was not 
the building of sepulchres but the imitation of 
their fathers that was reckoned a crime.” § 

b) The worship of holy relics is an ancient 
practice in the Church. 


Thus we read in the Acts of St. Polycarp (composed 
about A.D. 156): “We adore Him [Christ], because 
He is the Son of God, but the martyrs we love as disciples 
and imitators of the Lord. ... Then we buried in a 
becoming place his [St. Polycarp’s] remains, which are 
more precious to us than the costliest diamonds, and 
which we esteem more highly than gold. The Lord 
will grant us to assemble there as often as possible in glad- 
ness and joy, and to commemorate the birthday of his 
[Polycarp’s] martyrdom, for the twofold purpose of re- 
minding us of those who have already gained the palm 
of victory, and to exercise and train those who are yet 
tovventer the: conflict,”?.? 


8In Luc., VII, n. 106: “ Aedifi- 9 Mariyrium S. Polycarpi, c. 17, 
cando sepulchra prophetarum patrum ed. Funk, Vol. I, 301. For many 
suorum facta damnabant, aemulando other similar instances see Th. 
autem paterna scelera in setpsos Ruinart, Acta Primorum Martyrum 
sententiam retorquebant.... Non Sincera et Selecta, 2d ed., Amster- 


igitur aedificatio, sed aemulatio loco dam 1713. 
criminis aestimatur.” 


158 APPENDIX 


The Fathers regard the numerous miracles wrought 
through the bodies of holy martyrs as so many arguments 
in support of the dogma under consideration. St. 
Ambrose relates how a blind man was restored to sight 
when the newly found bodies of SS. Gervasius and 
Protasius were taken to the basilica, and adds: “ You 
know, nay you havé seen with your own eyes, how 
many were delivered from demons, and a great num- 
ber were cured of diseases when they touched the gar- 
ments of the Saints; how there was a repetition of the 
miracles of the early days when, in consequence of the 
advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, abundant grace was 
showered down upon the earth.”?° St. Augustine also 
tells of a number of miracles wrought in connection with 


holy relics.** 


10 Ep., 22, n. 9 (Migne, P..L., 
XVI, 1022 sq.): ‘“‘ Cognovistis, imo 
vidistis ipsi multos a daemontis pur- 
gatos, plurimos etiam, ubi vestem 
sanctorum manibus contigerunt, ws 
quibus laborabant debilitatibus abso- 
lutos, reparata vetusti temporis 
miracula, quo se per adventum 
Domini Iesu gratia terris maior in- 
fuderat.” 

11 Confessiones, IX, 7; De Civ. 
Dei, XXII, 8. St. Ambrose severely 
rebukes the Arians, who denied that 
miracles were wrought through rel- 
ics. “Et Ariani dicunt: Non sunt 


istti martyres nec torquere diabolum - 


possunt nec aliquem liberare.... 
Negant caecum illuminatum, sed tlle 
non negat se sanatum. Ille dicit: 
Video, qui non videbam. Ille dicit: 
Caecus esse desivi, et probat facto. 
Isti beneficium negant, qui factum 
negare non possunt. Notus homo 
publicis, quum valeret, mancipatus 
obsequiis, Severus nomine, lanius 
ministerio.” (Ep., 22, n. 16 sq.) 
St. Jerome says in his treatise Con- 
tra Vigilantium (n. 5): “ Dolet 


martyrum reliquias pretioso operirt 
velamine et non vel pannis vel cili- 
cio colligari vel protict in sterqui- 
linum, ut solus Vigilantius ebrius et 
dormiens adoretur. Ergo sacrilegt 
sumus, quando Apostolorum basili- 
cas ingredimur? Sacrilegus fuit 
Constantius Imperator I., qui sanc- 
tas reliquias Andreae, Lucae et Ti- 
mothei transtulit Constantinopolim, 
apud quas daemones rugiunt?” 
Other Patristic texts in Petavius, 
*De Incarn., XIV, 13 and Thomas- 
sin, De Incarn., XII, 4.— The Pa- 
tristic evidence is so overwhelming 
that even Harnack is constrained to 
confess: ‘*‘ Most offensive was the 
worship of relics. It flourished to 
its greatest extent as early as the 
fourth century and no Church doc- 
tor of repute restricted it. All of 
them rather, even the Cappadocians, 
countenanced it. The numerous 
miracles which were wrought by 
bones and relics seemed to confirm 
their worship. The Church, there- 
fore, would not give up the prac- 
tice, although a violent attack was 


THE WORSHIP OF RELICS 159 


c) This traditional practice explains the spe- 
cial veneration which Catholics have always 
entertained for what were believed to be particles 
of the true Cross. 


a) St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “This holy wood of 
the Cross is still to be seen among us; and through the 
agency of those who piously took home particles thereof, 
it has filled the whole earth.”1* St. Chrysostom tells 
how men and women used to wear particles of the Cross 
in golden lockets on their necks.** 

The faithful were also wont to venerate the lance, the 
nails, the pillar at which our Lord was scourged, the 
linen in which His sacred body was wrapped, His tunic, 
the crib in which He was supposed to have lain as an 
infant, the holy sepulchre, etc. Some of these relics have 
not stood the test of archeological criticism, but this 
proves nothing against the thesis we are sustaining.” 
No doubt, after the critics have done their work, the 
Church will not hesitate, with due regard to the senti- 
ments of the faithful, to withdraw all spurious relics from 
public veneration and thus place the trustful devotion of 
her children upon a secure historical basis.*® 

8) There is another early Christian practice which, to 
be properly understood, must be judged in the light of 


made upon it by a few cultured 
heathens and besides by the Man- 
icheans.” (Hist. of Dogm., Engl. 
Pha LV Ole, L Vy. De 303-) 

12° Catech., x0, n._ ro.) St. Cyril 
and. a few other Patristic and me- 
dieval writers apparently believed 
that there was some virtue inherent 
in relics. On this point see H. 
Thurston in the Catholic Encyclo- 
pedia, Vol. XII, p. 735. - 


14 Migne, P. G., XLVIII, 826. 

15 Cfr. St. John Damascene, De 
Fide Orth., TV, 11. 

i6 Cfr. Rohault de Fleury, Mé- 
moire sur les Instruments de la Pas- 
sion, Paris 1870; L. de Combes, The 
Finding of the Cross, pp. 167 sqq., 
London 1907. Regarding certain al- 
leged relics of the Precious Blood 
of our Divine Saviour see Pohle- 
Preuss, Christology, pp. 170 sqq. 


160 APPENDIX 


the veneration exhibited to holy relics. It is the 
custom of making pilgrimages to the tombs of the Saints, 
especially Apostles and martyrs. Bishop Jonas of Or- 
leans, who died about 840, writes: “We are taught 
that those are not to be censured nor to be called foolish, 
who, for the purpose of increasing their devotion, or 
seeking the intercession of the Apostles, visit their 
burial places, because we believe that not only is love 
for the service of God increased by this practice, but 
men will be rewarded for the labors and journeys which 
they undertake for the love of God. Besides, it is 
peculiar to the human mind to be more forcibly im- 
pressed by things seen than by things heard.” +7 How 
closely the exterior manifestations of devotion in such 
holy places resembled those still witnessed at the present 
time appears from a statement made by Theodoret of 
Cyrus (died about 458). He says that after being cured 
of various diseases, pious pilgrims were wont to leave 
symbolic votive offerings at the shrines where they had 
found relief. ‘‘ That those who pray devoutly receive the 
fruitage of their vows,” he says, “is proved by the pres- 
ents which they leave in commemoration of their cure. 
Some hang up gold or silver representations of eyes, oth- 
ers of feet, others of hands, etc.”?8 In making pilgrim- 
ages, however, Catholics will do well to heed the prudent 


-solummodo eorum mentibus adolescat 
amor circa divini cultus servitutem, 


17 De Culiu Imag., 1. 3: ‘‘ Doce- 
mur, non improbandos nec more 


tuo [Jonas is arguing against Bishop 
Claudius of Turin, who opposed the 
veneration of images] stultos in- 
sipientesque appellandos esse eos, 
qui devotionis augmentandae gratia 
intercessionisque per suffragia quae- 
rendae Apostolorum adeunt limina, 
quia credimus, quod per haec non 


sed etiam laboris sui atque itineris, 
quae subire volunt intentione di- 
vint amoris, mercede donentur. 
Sane est etiam proprium humanae 
mentt, non adeo compungi ex audi- 
tis, sicut ex visis.”’ 


18 De Cur. Affect. Graec., 1. 8 


THE WORSHIP OF RELICS TOL 


admonition of Thomas 4 Kempis:1® “They who goon - 
many pilgrimages seldom become holy.” ”° | 


Reapincs:— H. Thurston, S. J., art. “Relics” in the Catholic 
Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, pp. 734-738.— Benedict XIV, De Ser- 
vorum Dei Beatificatione et Canonisatione, IV, Pt. 2— Mioni, Il 
Culto delle Reliquie, Turin 1908—P. Bruder, Die Reliquien- 
verehrung in der kath. Kirche, Dilmen 1881.—S. Beissel, S. J., 
Die Verehrung der Heiligen und ihrer Reliquien in Deutschland 
wahrend des Mittelalters, 2 vols., Freiburg 1890-92.— H. Siebert, 
Zur vorreformatorischen Heiligen- und Reliquienverehrung, Frei- 
burg 1907,— C. Stengel, De Reliquiarum Cultu, Ingolstadt 1624.— 
J. Ferrandi, Disquisitio Reliquiaria, Lyons 1647 De Cordemoy, 
Traité des Saintes Reliques, Paris 1719.— A. S. Barnes, The Early 
Church in the Light of the Monuments, pp. 47-50, London 1913. 


19 De Imit. Christi, I, 23. Gregory Martin, Treatyse of Chris- 

20 On the subject of pilgrimages tian Peregrination, 1583; reprinted 
see J. Marx, Das Wallfahren i under the title, Pilgrimages and 
der katholischen Kirche, historisch- Relics, by the English Catholic 
kritisch dargestelit, Trier 1842; Truth Society, London 1915. 


CHAPTER. JIT 


THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 


An image (imago, «xév) is a representation or 
likeness of any person, sculptured, drawn, painted 
or otherwise made perceptible to the sight. The 
person represented is known as the “prototype,” 
while the image itself is called “ectype.” The 
veneration of holy images, like that of relics, is 
a purely relative worship (cultus relativus), 
as its formal object consists in the sanctity 
of the person whom it represents, not in the mate- 
rial imageitself. The Seventh Ecumenical Coun- 
cil of Nicwa (ASD. 787). ‘SaysS) “The honor 
given to an image passes to the prototype thereof, 
and he who worships an image, worships in the 
image the person of him whom it represents.” ! 


Images of God and the Saints differ toto coelo from 
idols. An idol (simulacrum, é8wdgov) is the representa- 
tion of a false god, while a holy image in the Christian 
sense is the pictorial representation of the true God or of 
a genuine Saint. A Saint is venerated but not adored. 
Hence it is a rude and gratuitous insult to charge Cath- 
olics with being idolaters because they venerate the images 


1“ Imaginis enim honor ad primi- vat in eo depicti subsistentiam 
tivum (mpwrdruroyv) transit, et qui (irréaTacty).”’ (Denzinger-Bann- 
adorat [i. e., colit] imaginem, ado- wart, n. 302.) 


162 


ee eT 


Pe 


tm} 
— 


Fp 
Se 


ead 


b 
’ 

i 

ii 


yi 
hs 
‘ 


ee arn el 


En Se PO a ee 


THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 163 


of Saints. “How are we idolaters,” demanded the 
Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, “ who honor > 
and worship the bones, the ashes, the garments, and the 
tombs of the martyrs precisely for the reason that they 
refused to sacrifice to idols?” ® 


Thesis I: Holy images must not be worshipped as 


such. 
This is de fide. 
Proof. The Seventh Ecumenical Council 


(A. D. 787) says: “The more frequently they 
[the Saints] are beheld by means of images, the 
more keenly are those who view them moved to re- » 
member and desire their originals, to kiss them 
and to pay them the tribute of worship, not, how- 
ever, divine worship, which according to our faith 
is due solely to the Divine Nature.” 3 

One of the Fathers of this council, Bishop Con- 
stantius of Constantia (a city on the island of 
Cyprus), said in a public confession of faith: 
“JT, though unworthy, assent to these truths . . 
accepting and embracing with honor the holy and 


venerable images. 


2° Quomodo sumus idololatrae, 
qui et ipsa ossa et cinerem et pannos 
et sanguinem et tumulum martyrum 
tdeo honoramus et adoramus [i. e., 
colimus], quia idolis non sacrificave- 
runt?” (Acta Conc. Ecum. VII, 


3“ Quanto frequentius per ima- 
ginalem formationem videntur, tanto 
qui has [imagines] contemplantur, 
alacrius eriguntur ad primitivorum 


Adoration, which consists in 


(mpwrotimwy) earum memoriam et 
desiderium, ad osculum et ad honora- 
riam his adorationem (mpookxtynaoy) 
tribuendam, non tamen ad veram 
latriam, quae secundum fidem est 
quaeque solam divinam naturam 
decet, impertiendam (ob why Thy 
kata tisti huov addnOivnv da- 
Tpelav,  mpérer povyn TH Oeig 
gvoe).” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
302.) 


164 APPENDIX 


latria, i. e., the worship due to God, I render 
only to the supersubstantial and life-giving Trin- 
ity. And I exclude from the holy Catholic and 
Apostolic Church all those who do not hold and 
proclaim this doctrine, and pronounce anathema 
upon them.’’* This perfectly orthodox confession 
was later circulated among the Franks in a garbled 
translation, thus: “I accept and embrace with 
honor the holy and venerable images according 
to the worship of adoration which I give to the 
consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, and I ex- 
clude from the holy Catholic and Apostolic 
Church, etc.” ° This mistranslation led a synod 
held at Frankfort in 794 to assume a hostile atti- 
tude towards the Council of Nicza.° Pope Ha- 
drian the First cleared up the misunderstanding, 
and the Second Council of Niczea was subse- 
quently recognized as ecumenical by the Western 
Church.’ 


4“ Fgo indignus his consentio 
. suscipiens et amplectens hono- 
vabiliter sanctas et venerabiles ima- 


non sentiunt, etc.” 
XGCVILT rra8)) 
6 Can. 2: “ Allata est in medium 


(Migne, P. L., 


gines; atque adorationem, quae per 
latriam, 1. e., Deo debitam servitu- 
tem efficitur, soli supersubstantialt 
et vivificae Trinitatt impendo. Et 
qui ita non sapiunt neque praedi- 
cant, a sancta catholica et apostolica 
Ecclesia segrego et anathemati sub- 
ticto.”’ (Hardouin, Conc., t. IV, p. 
151.) 

5“ Suscipio et amplector honora- 
biliter sanctas et venerandas ima- 
gines secundum  servitium ~ adora- 
tionits, quod consubstantiali et vivi- 
ficatrici Trinitatt emitto, et qui sic 


quaestio de nova Graecorum synodo, 
quam de adorandis imaginibus Con- 


- stantinopoli fecerunt, in qua scrip- 


tum habebatur, ut qui imaginibus 
sanctorum ita ut deificae Triniiati 
servitium aut adorationem non im- 
penderent, anathemate iudicarentur. 
Qut. supra | SS. Patres — nosirt 
omnimodis adorationem et servi- 
tutem renuentes contempserunt 
atque  consentientes condemnave- 
runt.’ (Mansi, Concil., t. VIII, p. 
909.) 

7 Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., XV, 


THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 165, 


a) For the Scriptural argument we must refer 
the reader to our treatise on God.* An explicit 
prohibition of image worship occurs in Ex. XX, 
4sq.: “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven 
thing,’ nor the likeness of any thing that is in 
heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of 
those things that are in the waters under the 
earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve 
them: Iam the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, 
visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the 
err et ia a 


It may be objected that this text forbids the making 
of images. It does, but only for the reason that the 
Jewish people were inclined to idolatry. 

The veneration of holy images is not a positive com- 
mand, but the Church is free either to introduce and 
encourage, or to limit and even to prohibit it where there 
is danger of serious abuse, as there might be, for exam- 
ple, in a country whose inhabitants were but just converted 
from idolatry.’° 


b) The true Tradition is attested by all those 
Fathers who were quoted by the iconoclasts of 
the eighth and sixteenth centuries against the 
veneration of images. For in matter of fact 
those Fathers did no more than oppose the ado- 


12 sqq.; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 
Vol. III, 2nd, ed., pp. 690 sqq., 
Freiburg 1877. 

8 Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowa- 
bility, Essence, and Attributes, 2nd 
ed., pp. 212 sqq. t 

9 The Septuagint has e/6wdov. 


10 Cfr. St. John Damascene, Or. 
de Imag., 1, n. 8. On canon 36 of 
the Council of Elvira, which presents 
some difficulties, see F. X. Funk, 
Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen 
und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 
346 saq., Paderborn 1897. 


166 APPENDIX 


ration of images, in doing which they were in per- 
fect harmony with the invariable teaching of the 
Church. 


St. John Damascene, the great champion of Catholic 
truth against the Greek Iconoclasts, answered his op- 
ponents as follows: “All the passages which you bring 
forward do not stamp as a crime the worship we give to 
images, but the practice of the heathen, who make idols 
of them.” 12 St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 
who stood in the forefront of the battle? was as em- 
phatic in condemning the adoration of images as he was 
in defending the traditional custom of venerating them. 
“ This,” he says, “ is the reason for the making of images: 
we do not transfer the adoration in spirit and truth, which 
is due to the incomprehensible and inaccessible Divinity, 
to images made by human hands; but we show the 
love which we rightly cherish for the true servants of 
the Lord, and by honoring them, honor God.” ** 


c) The prohibition of the Seventh Ecumencial 
Council also includes representations of Christ, 
though, of course, our Saviour, being true God, 
is entitled to divine worship.™ 

a) There seems to be a contradiction between the 
teaching of this Council and that of St. Thomas, who, 


together with many of the older Scholastics, holds that 
images of Christ, nay even those of His holy Cross, 


11 Or. de Imag., 2,:n. 17. Cir. a victim of cruel persecution, A. 
Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 23, art. D. 733- 
Sr uyis. 13 Ep. ad TIoa. Episc. Synad., 
12 He was forcibly deposed by apud Hardouin, Concil., IV, 242. 
Emperor Leo the Isaurian and died 14 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 


pp. 278 sqq. 


THE.WORSHIP OF IMAGES 167. 
are entitled to divine adoration (cultus latriae).° How 
is this apparent contradiction to be explained? Some 
modern theologians assume that the early Scholastics 
were unacquainted with the definition of Nicewa. We 
prefer the following explanation. The cultus latriae 
which St. Thomas demands for images of Christ and for 
His true Cross, is merely a relative worship, essentially 
distinct from the cultus latriae absolutus due to our 
Saviour Himself. The Angelic Doctor frequently in- 
sists on these two fundamental principles: (1) The 
rational creature alone is entitled to honor and reverence, 
and any reverence shown to an irrational creature must 
in some way or other be referred to a rational creature; 


qu. 25, art. 4: “Si ergo loquamur 
de ipsa cruce, in qua Christus cru- 


15 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 
3: “Duplex est motus (internus) 


in imaginem: unus quidem in ipsam 
imaginem, secundum quod res quae- 
dam est; alio modo in imaginem, in- 
quantum est imago alterius; et inter 
hos duos motus est haec differen- 
tia, quia primus motus, quo quis 
movetur in imaginem ut est res 
quaedam, est alius a motu qui est 
in rem; secundus autem motus, qui 
est in imaginem inquanium est 
imago, est unus et idem cum illo qui 


est in rem. Sic ergo dicendum est,’ 


quod imagini Christi, inquantum est 
res quaedam, puta lignum sculptum 
vel pictum, nulla reverentia habe- 
tur, quia reverentia nonnist ratio- 
nali naturae debetur. Relinquitur 
ergo quod exhibeatur ei reverentia 
solum inquantum est imago, et sic 
sequitur, quod eadem reverentia ex- 
hibeatur imagini Christi et ipsi 
Christo. Quum ergo Christus adore- 
tur adoratione latriae, consequens 
est, quod eius imago sit adoratione 
latriae adoranda,”’ ~St. Thomas con- 
sistently extends this principle 
to the true Cross of our Divine 
Saviour. Cfr. Summa Theol., 3a, 


cifixus est, utroque modo est a no- 
bis veneranda. Uno scil. modo, 
inquantum repraesentat nobis figu- 
ram Christi extenst in ea; alio modo 
ex contactu ad membra Christi et 
ex hoc, quod eius sanguine est per- 
fusa. Unde utroque modo adoratur 
eadem adoratione cum Christo, scil. 
adoratione latriae. Et propter hoc 
etiam crucem alloquimur et depre- 
camur quasi ipsum crucifixum”’ (as 
in the hymn “O crux, ave, spes 
unica’”’). He adds on the general 
subject of crucifixes (J. ¢.): “St 
vero loquamur de effigie crucis 
Christi in quacumque alia materia, 
puta lapidis vel ligni, argentt vel 
auri, sic_veneramur crucem tantum 
ut imaginem Christi, quam venera- 
mur adoratione latriae.” 

16 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 
4: “Honor seu reverentia non 
debetur nisi rationali naturae, crea- 
turae autem insensibil [i. e@., trra- 


tionali] non debetur honor vel 
reverentia nisi ratione rationalis 
naturae.” 


168 APPENDIX 
(2) Adoration is due solely to God and can be given to no 
creature on its own account (7. e., absolutely).17 In 
teaching, therefore, that an image of Christ must be wor- 
shipped eadem adoratione as our Lord Himself, St. 
Thomas evidently conceives the adoration due to the 
image as a cultus latriae relativus, a worship which re- 
verts to Christ and consequently can no more be branded 
as idolatry than the honor rendered to a king’s image can 
be termed superstition. This teaching is in consonance 
with that of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which con- 
demns the worship of images only in so far as it is liable 
to degenerate into idolatry. It is true, however, that 
according to the Nicene Council there is something in 
the images themselves which entitles them to veneration, 
inasmuch as they are “ sacred objects” (res sacrae, dow) 
and as such must be treated with reverence. This St. 
Thomas. seems to have overlooked. 

8B) lf the true Cross is entitled to a relative cultus 
latriae because it touched the sacred body of Christ and 
was sprinkled with His blood, why are we forbidden to 
exhibit a like worship to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose 
connexion with our Divine Lord was so much more in- 
timate? St. Thomas answers this question as follows: 
“ The rational creature can be venerated for its own sake. 
And therefore divine worship (atria) is due to no mere 
rational creature. The Blessed Virgin is a mere rational 


17 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 
5: “Latria soli Deo debetur, nulli 
creaturae debetur latria, prout crea- 
turam secundum se [t. e. absolute] 
veneramur.”’ 

18 Synod. Nicaen, II (a. 787): 
. . tta ut istis [imaginibus] sicut 
figurae pretiosae ac vivificae crucis 
et sanctis evangeliis et reliquis sa- 
cris monumentis, incensorum et lu- 


ee 
. 


minum oblatio ad harum honorem 
eficiendum exhibeatur. ... Imagi- 
nis enim honor ad primitivum tran- 
sit, et qui adorat imaginem, adorat 
in ea depicti subsistentiam.” (Den- 
zinger-Bannwart, n. 302. Cfr. on 
this subject Pesch, Praelect. Dog- 
mat., Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 378 sq., 
Freiburg 1909.) 


THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 169. 
creature and consequently not entitled to divine worship, 
but solely to the veneration called dulia, in a higher de- 
gree, however, than other creatures, inasmuch as she is 
the Mother of God; and for this reason we say that she 
is entitled not to any kind of dulia, but to hyperdulia.” ° 
Billuart points out that this hyperdulic worship is abso- 
lute and therefore more perfect than the purely relative 
cultus latriae, which may be exhibited to inanimate ob- 
jects.?° 


Thesis II: The pious veneration of holy images is 
licit and useful. 


This is also an article of faith. 

If those who adore images sin per exces- 
sum, those who deny the Catholic doctrine of the 
veneration of images sin per defectum. ‘The chief 
champions of the last-mentioned error were the 
Iconoclasts of the eighth century and the Zwing- 
lians and Calvinists,** together with a few minor 
sects, in the sixteenth. 


Against the Iconoclasts the Seventh Ecumenical Coun- 
cil of Nicza (A. D. 787) ?? defined that, ‘‘ as the figure of 
the precious and life-giving cross, so also the holy and 
venerable images — whether of color, or of stone, or of 
any other appropriate material—are suitably set up in 


19 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 25, art. 
5: “‘Creatura rationalis est capax 
venerationts secundum seipsam 
[= absolute]. Et ideo nulli purae 
creaturae rationali debetur cultus 
latriae. Quum igitur beata Virgo 
sit pura creatura rationalis, non de- 
betur et adoratio latriae, sed solum 


veneratio duliae, eminentius tamen. 


quam ceteris creaturis, inquantum 


ipsa est mater Dei; et ideo dicitur 
quod debetur et non qualiscumque 
dulia, sed hyperdulia.’’ 

20 Billuart, De Incarn.; diss. 23, 
art. 4. Cfr. De Lugo, De Myst. 
Incarn., disp. 35, sect. 2. 

21Cfr;\Calvin’s Instit., 15:23. 1V; 9. 

22 On this Council see A. For- 
tescue in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 
Vol. VII, pp. 622 sq. 


170 


APPENDIX 


the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and garments, 
on walls and tables, in houses and on roads: namely the 
image of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ 
and that of our immaculate Lady, the holy Mother of 
God, and those of the venerable angels and of all holy 


and pious men.” 78 


The Council of Trent teaches: 


“ The images of Christ, 


and of His Virgin Mother, and of other Saints, are to be 
used and retained, especially in churches, and due honor 
and veneration is to be given them; not that any divinity 
or virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are 
to be honored, or that anything is to be asked of them, or 


23 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 302: 
“Opifouev oty axpiBela mdon Kal 
éupedeia, maparAnciws Tro Tite 
ToU Tylov Kat fwomrowd oravpov 
dvaridecOat Tas certas Kal ayias 
eixévas, Tas €kK xpwudTwr Kat 
Ynpidos Kat érépas Ans émiry- 
delws éxovons, ev rats ayia Tov 
Ocov éxkAnoias, év lepois oKxevect 
kat éoOjo., Tolxous Te Kal caviow, 
olkots Te Kal 6d0is' THs Te Tov 
kuptov Kat Qeov kal cwrHpos hudv 
"Inco Xpicrov elxdvos, Kal THs 
axpdvrov SOecrolvys Huav Tihs 
ayias Oeordxov, Tintwy Tre ay- 
yéehwv, Kal mdavTwy aylwy Kat 
éalwy dvip@y. The current Latin 
translation renders this passage as 
follows: ‘‘ Definimus in omni certi- 
tudine ac diligentia, sicut figuram 
pretiosae ac vivificae crucis, ita 
venerabiles ac sanctas imagines 
proponendas tam quae de coloribus 
et tessellis, quam quae ex alia ma- 
teria congruenter in sanctis Dei 
ecclesiis, et sacris vasis et vestibus, 
et in parietibus ac tabulis, domibus 
et viis: tam videl. imaginem Domini 
Dei et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi 
quam intemeratae dominae nostrae 
Ss. Det genitricis, honorabiliumque 


videlicet imaginem. 


angelorum et omnium  sanctorum 
simul et almorum vivorum. Quanto 
enim frequentius, etc.” (V. supra, 
p. 163.) The infinitive dyarlOecbat, 
which-is translated “ proponendas ”’ 
(sc. esse), means either: “‘[we de- 
fine] that they (elxévas) are set 
up,’ or (less in accordance with 
grammar) “that they should be set 
up.” Since mapamtAnoiws with the 
dative has the force of: “ with the 
same appropriateness as,” “ equally 
as’? we translate: “. .. that they 
are as appropriately set up [placed] 
Sieieyasi thes istseross’ ey eb her mase 
part of the sentence: ... ris 
Te Tov Kupiov . « « Xp.arov eikévos, 
is rendered by the Latin transla- 
tion according to the sense: tam 
The Greek gen- 
itive eixdvos seems to depend in a 
way on r@ rUmrw..., hardly on 
Tas eixdvas. It may be well to 
add that trys émiryndelws éxovons 
is Uns eritydelas ovons, or simply 
trAns émiryndeias. The Latin trans- 
lation somewhat obscures the mean- 
ing. It may be noted that this 
definition proved a source of in- 
spiration and a guiding principle to 
Christian artists for all time. 


THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 171) 
that any confidence is to be placed in images, as was done | 
by the heathen of old who placed their hope in idols; 
but because the honor which is shown them is referred to 
the originals which they represent; so that by the images 
we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, and 
fall down, we adore Christ and venerate His Saints, 
whose likeness they represent.’ 74 

It follows that the worship which we Catholics give to 
holy images is purely relative according to the originals 
represented, and this relative worship is either latreutic, 
dulic or hyperdulic, as the case may be. 


a) The Old Testament furnishes several in- 
stances in confirmation of the Catholic dogma 
of the veneration of images.?® Thus Yahweh 
Himself commanded: “Thou shalt make also 
two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of 
the oracle. . . . Thence will I give orders, and 
will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from 
the midst of the two cherubims, which shall be 
upon the ark of the testimony, all things which I 
will command the children of Israel by thee.” 7° 
For the Ark of the Covenant the Jews had the 


24Sess. XXV_ (Denzinger-Bann- 
wart, n. 986): “‘Imagines porro 
Christi, Deiparae Virginis et aliorum 
Sanctorum in templis praesertim ha- 
bendas et retinendas eisque debitum 
honorem et venerationem impertien- 
dam, non quod credatur inesse 
aliqua in tis divinitas vel virtus, 
propter quam sint colendae, vel quod 
ab eis sit aliquid petendum vel quod 
fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda, 


velutt olim fiebat a gentibus quae 


in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed 


12 


quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur, 
refertur ad prototypa quae iilae 
repraesentant, ita ut per imagines, 
quas osculamur, etc.” (ut supra, 
Pp. 142). 

25 Attention was called to this 
fact as early as 780 by Pope Ha- 
drian I, in his reply to the Greek 
Emperor Constantine and his mother 
Irene. Cfr. Mansi, Concil., XIII 
528 sqq. 

26 Ex. XXV, 18, 22. 


172 APPENDIX 


greatest veneration. Cfr. Jos. VII, 6: “Josue 
rent his garments, and fell flat on the ground be- 
fore the ark of the Lord until the evening, both 
he and all the ancients of Israel: and they put 
dust upon their heads.” Another example in 
point isthe’ brazen: serpent.) Numb. XX 3: 
“And the Lord said to him: Make a brazen 
serpent, and set it up for a sign: Whosoever 
being struck shall look on it, shall live.’ This 
serpent, St. John tells us, was a type of the cruci- 
hed (Redeemer. Ctr Johnid]t) taze Asi Moses 
lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the 
Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth 
in him, may not perish, but may have life ever- 
lasting.” If the Jews were permitted to venerate 
the promised Messias under the image of a 
brazen serpent, why should we Christians be for- 
bidden to adore Him under the figure of the Good 
Shepherd or the Crucified Saviour? The Moors 
and Turks could hardly have chosen a more 
characteristic way of showing their contempt for 
our Divine Lord than by trampling upon the 
crucifix. 

What is true of the images of our Lord is also 
true, servataé proportione, of the images of His 
Blessed Mother and the Saints.?" 

b) The Second Ecumenical Council (Niczea, A. 
D. 787) introduces its teaching on image worship | 


27 Cfr. L. Janssens, Christologia, p. 811, Freiburg 1891. 


THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 173 


by the remark that, in stating the Catholic doc- 
trine in the way it does, it keeps to “the royal 
highway of tradition,” and concludes: “For thus 
the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is to say, the 
tradition of the holy Catholic Church, will be made 
effective.” 78 Pope Hadrian I (A. D. 780), in his 
dogmatic epistle to Constantine and Irene, ap- 
pealed to the traditional practice of the Roman 
Church and quoted in its support a considerable 
number of ancient Fathers, e. g., Athanasius, 
Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril of 
Alexandria, Ambrose, and Jerome.”® 


a) Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria says in his commen- 
tary on the Psalms: “Though we make images of 
saintly men, we do not venerate them as gods, but merely 
wish to be inspired by their example to imitate them. 
But the image of Christ we make in order to fire our 
hearts with love for Him. Assuredly we do not adore a 
perishable image or the likeness of a perishable man. 
But since God, without changing Himself, condescended 
to become man, we represent Him as a man, though we 
are well aware that He is by nature God. We do not, 
therefore, call the image God, but we know that He whom 
it represents is God.” *° 

Theodoret relates that the Christians i Rome erected 
statuettes of St. Simon Stylites (d. 479) at the entrance 


28 Sic enim robur obtinet SS. Epiphanius, and Augustine see F. 
Pairum nostrorum doctrina, t% @. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichiliche Ab-. 
traditio sanctae catholicae Ecclesiae.” handlungen und Untersuchungen, 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 302.) Vol. I, pp. 349 sqq. 

29 Mansi, 1. c. On the peculiar 330 In Ps., 113, 16. 


attitude of Eusebius of Cesarea, 


174 APPENDIX 
of their workshops, in order “thereby to assure them- 
selves of protection and safety.” * 

The lack of examples showing that the veneration of 
images was practiced in the first three centuries, which 
used to be deplored by Catholic theologians,®* has been 
supplied by the recent discovery in the Roman catacombs 
of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, the holy Apos- 
tles Peter and Paul, and other Saints.*? 

B) While Tradition leaves no doubt that the venera- 
tion of the images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, 
and the Saints (as well as of the angels) ** has always 
been considered licit in the Church, the case is differ- 
ent with representations of God and the Trinity. With 
regard to these we can quote no such binding definitions 
as those we have adduced in reference to the 
former class of holy images.** Nevertheless, present- 
day theologians are agreed as to the permissibility of 
making and venerating images of God and the Trinity, 
provided no attempt is made to picture the Divine Na- 
ture itself. It is in this sense that we must interpret the 
warning of St. John of Damascus: “If we were to make 
an image of the invisible God, we should in truth go 
wrong; for it is impossible to make a statue of one who 
is without body, invisible, boundless, and formless.” * 
When this danger is excluded, the Divinity may be pic- 
tured either by way of a historical theophany (e. g., the 
Yahweh-Angel appearing in the flaming fire of the bush) 
or allegorically (as, for instance, when, to symbolize His 


gebarerin Maria auf den Kunstdenk- 


81 Hist. Rel., c. 26. 
miilern in den Katakomben, Frei- 


82 Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., n. 


* s06. 


33 Cfr. Wilpert, Die Malereien in 
den Katakomben Roms, Freiburg 
1903; Liell, Die Darstellungen der 
allerseligsten Jungfrau und Gottes- 


burg 1887. 
84 Synod. Nicaen. II, supra p. 170. 
35 Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 
23, art.: '35-S4. 
36 Or. de Imag., 2, Ne 5- 


THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 175 


eternity, God is represented as an old man,*? or 
His omniscience is emblemed by a seeing eye**), etc. 
Pope Alexander VIII (A. D. 1690) condemned the prop- 
osition: “It is wrong to exhibit in a Christian church 
a picture representing God the Father in a sitting pos- 
ture.” 2° With regard to representations of the Blessed 
Trinity, Pius VI protested against the sweeping condem- 
nation of the pseudo-council of Pistoja as follows: 
“The prohibition which generally and indiscriminately 
ranges representations of the inscrutable Trinity among 
those images which should be banished from the Church 
because they furnish an occasion of error to the un- 
learned, is too general in its terms and therefore rash 
and contrary to the pious custom practiced by the Church ; 
for there are representations of the Trinity which are 
universally approved and may be safely permitted.” *° 
The Pope’s remark does, however, contain a warning to 
Christian artists to be careful in depicting the Trinity. 
The safest policy is to adhere to the traditional and ap- 
proved symbols. It would certainly be improper to rep- 
resent the triune God as a man with three heads or 
three faces.** ' 

Catechists and preachers should instruct the faithful 
in the meaning of current symbolic images of God 
and the Trinity.* 


c) Though there is no room for dispute as re- 
gards the permissibility of the veneration of 


-37 Cfr. Dan. VII, 9. capita vel tres facies.” (Billuart, 
38 Cfr. Ecclus. XXIII, 27. lc.) j 
39 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1315. 42On the iconography of the 


40 Constit.  ‘“ Auctorem  fidet,” Deity and Trinity in ancient Chris- 
A.D. 1794 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. tian art, cfr. C. M. Kaufmann, 
1569). ¥ Christliche Archédologie, pp. 392 

41“ Si pingeretur Trinitas sub s4., Paderborn 1905. 
specie unius hominis habentis trie 


176 | APPENDIX 


images, theologians disagree as to the manner in 
which they should be venerated. De Lugo dis- 
tinguishes two separate questions: (1) Whether 
holy images may be venerated, and (2) How they 
should be venerated. The first question, he says, 
is in dispute between Catholics and heretics, the 
second, among Catholics. The first is easier of 
solution than the second.* 


a) Some Catholic divines (notably Durandus and Al- 
phonsus a Castro) hold that holy images are not in them- 
selves worthy of veneration, but merely furnish an occa- 
sion to honor their originals. This opinion militates both 
against common sense and the defined teaching of the 
Church. A devoted son who kisses the image of his 
mother obviously honors the image itself, because of its 
relation to one who is near and dear to him. Similarly a 
Catholic uncovers his head and kneels before the statue 
of a Saint, and not before the Saint himself whom the 
statue represents, thus showing that he regards the image 
as something more than a mere ornament or means of in- 
struction. The official teaching of the Church is perfectly 
plain on this point. The Seventh Ecumenical Council 
refers to the images of the Saints as “venerable and 
holy,” while that of Trent declares them to be entitled to 
honor and reverence.** <A still plainer expression is that 
of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (A.D. 869), which 
says: ‘It is becoming that, in harmony With reason and 
a very ancient tradition, holy images be derivatively 

43. De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., Prima est cum haereticis, secunda 
disp. 36, sect. 2: “Duplex potest cum Catholicis; prima facilis, se- 
esse in hoc quaestio: prima, utrum  cunda dificilis.”’ 


imagines sint adorandae [colendae]; 44V. supra, pe 170. 
secunda, quomodo sint adorandae. 


THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 177 


honored and adored, in reference, namely, to the 
originals which they represent, just like the holy book 
of the Gospels and the figure of the precious Cross.” “° 
This view is in harmony with the universal prac- 
tice of the faithful,— which was expressly defended by 
Pope Pius VI against the pseudo-council of Pistoja,— of 
showing particular veneration and attributing special 
titles of honor to miraculous images of the Saints, espe- 
cially those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and pre- 
serving certain holy images under cover so that they 
cannot be seen.“ The opinion of Durandus and Alphon- 
sus a Castro is unanimously rejected by modern theolo- 
gians. 

B) Other divines hold that the veneration of the faith- 
ful is directed both to the image and its prototype, 
relative et secundario to the one, absolute et primario to 
the other. In other words, the image and its original 
together constitute the adequate total object of the cult; 
the image being venerated solely for the sake of, and 
in reference to, the original. According to this theory 
representations of God and Christ are entitled to a latreu- 
tic, those of the Blessed Virgin Mary to a hyperdulic, 
those of the angels and Saints to a merely relative dulic 
cult, St. Thomas,** St. Bonaventure, Capreolus, Soto, 
Vasquez, Antoine, and other theologians support this 
teaching by weighty arguments both from reason and au- 
thority. In the first place, they say, no inanimate object 
is entitled to a cult which would, as it were, bend the 


45 Dignum est, ut secundum aique typus pretiosae cructs.” 


-congruentiam rationis et antiquisst- (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 337.) 


mam. traditionem propter honorem, 46 Cfr. Constit. “ Auctorem fidei,”’ 
quia ad principalia [prototypa] ipsa A. D. 1794 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
referuntur, etiam derivative itconae 1570 sqq.)- 

honorentur et adorentur, aeque ut 47V. supra, p. 167. 

sanctorum sacer Evangeliorum liber 


178 APPENDIX 
faithful Catholic beneath the image. A person, as such, 
is always superior to a mere material object. The ex- 
terior submission exhibited to an image, therefore, con- 
sidered as the manifestation of an interior sentiment, can 
only refer to the original, and consequently the worship 
given to holy images, strictly and properly speaking, is 
purely relative. For this reason many councils have 
emphasized the proposition that “the honor shown to a 
holy image is referred to its prototype.” 48 

Cardinal Bellarmine objects that the language employed 
by the champions of this direct, though relative cult, is 
dangerous because it gives offence to Catholics and fur- 
nishes heretics an occasion for blasphemy.*® Bossuet ex- 
presses a more judicious view when he observes sy" St, 
Thomas says the Cross is worthy of latria, which is the 
highest form of worship. But he explains that such latria 
is relative, and not supreme except when it refers to Jesus 
Christ. The ground upon which the holy Doctor bases 
his argument is that the worship shown to an image is 
identical with that shown to its original, and that both are 
thus combined. Who would censure this Opinion? If 
the terms in which it is couched displease us, let us simply 
give them up, as Fr. Petavius has done; for the Church 
has never adopted this phraseology of St. Thomas. But 
it is a sign of great weakness and vanity to marvel at a 
theory which is so reasonable.” ®° 


487. supra, p. 171. Ona similar 
but misunderstood phrase in St. 
Basil’s treatise De Spiritu Sancto 
(c. 18, 45), cfr. Funk, Kirchenge- 
Schichtliche Abhandlungen und Un- 
tersuchungen, Vol. II, Pp. 251 sqq. 

49 Bellarmine, De Imag., II, 22: 
“ Hunc loquendi modum non carere 
magno periculo ... offendere aures 


Catholicorum et praebere occasionem 
haereticis liberius blasphemandi.” 
50 Bossuet, Oeuvres, Vol. V, p. 
277, Paris 1743: “S. Thomas at- 
tribue ad la croix le culte de latrie, 
qui est le culte supréme. Mais il 
S'explique en disant que c’est une 
latrie respective, qui dées la en elle- 
méme nest plus supréme et ne le 
devient que parce qu’elle se rap- 


THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES 179 
B) Bellarmine held,—and his opinion was shared, 
among others, by Catharinus and Platel,—that holy 
images may indeed be venerated for their own sake, but 
with a lesser cult than the originals, and that no image, 
not even that of the Divinity itself, is entitled to a relative 
divine worship (cultus latriae relativus). This theologi- 
cal school demands that in exhibiting veneration to a holy 
image, we subject ourselves to it not only in body, but 
with mind and heart, not indeed for the sake of the 
image, but with a view to its original. This theory, too, 
can be defended by solid arguments. The conciliar defi- 
nitions which deal with the subject demand no higher 
cult for any sacred image than that which we give to the 
book of the holy Gospels or to sacred vessels, neither 
of which class of objects is entitled to the cultus latriae 
relativus. Again, an image, as such, is inferior to its 
original, and not entitled to the same kind of worship. 
There is a specific difference between adoration and 
veneration. If Christ were to re-appear in person, we 
should worship Him in a different manner than we ven- 
erate His image. The civil law makes an analogous dis- 
tinction by punishing personal insults against those in au- 
thority more severely than disrespect shown to their pic- 
tures.** 
vain, st on est étonné de choses qué 


ont un sens si raisonnable.” On 
the view held by St. Thomas, V. 


porte & Jésus-Christ. Le fondement 
de ce saint docteur c'est que le 
mouvement qui porte a Vimage est 


le méme que celui qui porte a Vori- 
ginal, et qu’on unit ensemble lun et 
Vautre. Qui peut blamer ce sens? 
Personne, sans doute. St Vexpres- 
sion déplait, il ny a qua la laisser 
la, comme a fait sans hésiter le P. 
Pétau; car VEglise n’a pas adopté 
cette expression de S. Thomas. 
Mais on sera bien faible et bien 


supra, pp. 166 sqaq. 

51 Attempts have been made to 
reconcile the second and the third 
of the above described theories. Cfr. 
Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 23, art. 
3, §5, and De Lugo, De Myst. In- 
carn., disp. 36, seet. 3. See also 
G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. I1f, 


PP. 747 sSdaq- 


180 APPENDIX 


The worship of images (taking the latter term 
in its widest sense) corresponds to a deeply in- 
erained sentiment of human nature. To ana- 
lyze this sentiment is the task of philosophy. 
We leave it to the psychologists to explain 
why the image of a King or President should be 
privately and publicly honored by manifestations 
of respect such as the uncovering of heads, the dis- 
charging of cannon, and the lowering of flags. 
If such exterior tributes of veneration may be 
properly paid to secular rulers, they are surely not 
out of place when rendered to Almighty God and 
the angels and Saints who rule with Him in 
Heaven. 

READINGS : — Petavius, De Incarnatione, XIV, 11-18.— De 
Lugo, De Mysterio Incarnationis, disp. 36-37.— Radowitz, [kono- 
graphie der Heiligen, Berlin 1852.— *Garucci, Storia dell’ Arte 
Cristiana nei Primi Otto Secoli della Chiesa, Prato 1872 sqq.— 
Cl. Liidtke, Die Bilderverehrung und die bildlichen Darstellungen 
in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, Freiburg 1874.— BonX. 
Kraus, Roma Sotteranea, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1901.—H. Detzel, 
Christliche Ikonographie, 2 vols., Freiburg 1894-96.— Molanus, 
De Historia Sanctorum Imaginum et Picturarum (Migne, Theol. 
Cursus Completus, t. XXVII) ; E. Vacandard, Etudes de Critique 
et d’Histoire Religieuse, Série III, pp. 177-212, Paris 1912.— For 
an account of the Image Controversy see J. Tixeront, History of 


Dogmas, Vol. III, pp. 421-467, St. Louis 1016, and B. J. Otten, 
S. J, A Manual of ihe History of Dogmas, Vol. I, St. Louis 


1917, pp. 481 sqq. 


Barnabas, 


INDEX 


A 


*Aevrapbévos, 96, 102 sq. 
Albertus Magnus, 20. 
Alexander VII, 63. 
Alexander VIII, 175. 
Alexander of Alexandria, 8. 
Alexander of Hales, 68 sq. 
Alphonsus, St., 30, 130. 
Alphonsus a Castro, 176 sq. 
Ambrose, St., 79, 91, 102, 124, 
150, 157, 158, 173. 
Andrew of Crete, St., 
WO witO,. 117: 
Angelic Salutation, 24 sqq., 45 


53, 54, 


sq. 

Angels, Devotion to the, 143, 
144. 

Anglicans, oa 

Anna, St., 3 

ae of “St. Edmundsbury, 


Cae St., 47, 54, 68, 60. 

Antidicomarianites, 96, 98. 

Antoine, 177, 

Apostles’ Creed, 7. 

Armenians, I16. 

Assumption of the B. V. Mary, 
105 sqq. 

Athanasian Creed, 17. 

Athanasius, St., 9, 26, 94, 173. 

Augustine, St., 26, 53, 66 sq., 
78, 79, 86, 88, 98, 103, 145, 
I5I, 158. 

Axiom, Scholastic, 29 sq., 73. 


B 


Batus, 63, 107. 
Bardenhewer, 34, 52, 128. 
St., 144. 

Basil of Seleucia, 19. 


181 


Basil, St., 79, 102, 173. 

Bede, St., 102. 

Bellarmine, Card., 178 sq. 

Bernardine of Siena, St., 125, 
130. 

Bernard, St., 55, 68, 95, III, 
120; : 130. 

Biel, Gabriel, 76. 

Bonaventure, St., 


172: 
Bondelli, 60. 
Bonosus, 96, 98. 
Bossuet, 178. 
Brethren of Jesus, The, 98 sqq. 
Burial-place of the B. V. Mary, 
100. e 


CAJETAN, CArD., 60, 61. 

Calvinists, 1609. 

Canisius, Peter, 61. 

Capreolus, 177. 

Catacombs, Images of Our 
Lady in the, 86, 137, 174. 

Catharinus, Ambrosius, 60. 

Centuriators, 70. 

Christ, Conception of, I1 sqa.; 
Twofold sonship of, 13; His 
relation to His mother, 14; 
Virgin birth of, 90 sqq. 

Xpicrorékos, Q. 

Chrysostom, St., 79, 150, 150. 
17% 

Collum corporis mystict, 21. 

Collyridians, 136. 

Conception, 39, 56. 

Conception, Marys Immacu- 
late, 39 saqq. 

Conception of Christ, II sqq. 

Concupiscence, 72 sqq. 

Constantius of Constantia, 163 


Sq: 


65, 69, 130, 


182 


Coredemptrix, 122 sq. 

Councils, 
sq.; Chalcedon (A. D. 451) 
5; Constantinople (A. D. 
553) 5, 17, 97; Basle (A. D. 
1439) 62; Trent, 62, 73, 77, 
142, 146 sq., 154, 170; Toledo 
(A. D. 675) 89; Rome (A. 
D. 390) 91, 96; Capua (A. 
D. 389) 96; Milan (A. D. 
300) 063 uateran CA. 1D, 
649) 97; Constantinople (A. 
D. 680) 97; Vatican, 105; 
Ephesus, (A. D. 431) 1373 
Nicza (A. D. 787) 154, 162, 
163, 166, 160, 172 sq.; Fourth 
Lateran, 155° Frankfort (A. 
PD, 704). 1643 *Pistoja; 175 3 
Eighth Ecumenical, 176 sq. 

Cross, Particles of the, 150. 

Cross, Veneration due to the, 
166 sqq. 

Cult of the B. V. Mary, 133 


sqq. 

Cyril of Alexandria, St., 4, 8, 
9, 11, 89, 173. 

Cyril of J erusalem, Si 


D 


DaAuGHTERHOOD, Mary’s divine, 
18 sq. 

Death of the B. V. Mary, 105 
sqqd. 

Debitum contrahendi peccatum 
originale, 40 sq. 

Decretum Gelasianum, 116, 

Definability of the Assumption, 
118. 

Deipara, 7. 

De Lugo, 176. 

De Wette, 84. 

Diacona sacrificti, 125. 

Diaconissa Christi, 123. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, 52. 

Dispensatrix omnium — grati- 
arum, 130 sqq. 

Docetism, 13, 95. 

“Domina Christi,’ 132. 

Dominicans, 60, 63, 68, 70 sq. 


Third Ecumenical, 4 


INDEX 


Dormitio B. M. V., 115, 117. 


Dulia, 134 sqq., 140 sqq. 
Durandus, 176 sq. 


E 


ELIzABeTH, St., 
Ephrem, St., 


II, 30. 
50, 52, 74, 79. 


Pee MEL 26. NTO2) S106. 
1306. 
Eve, 46, 49 sqq., 65, 77, 127. 
F 
Filia adoptiva, 18. 
Firstborn, 101. 
Fonck, L., 106. 
Franciscans, 60, 68. 
“Full of grace,” 28 sq. (See 


also Plenitudo gratie.) 


G 


GasriEL, Archangel, 6, 31. 

Gennadius, 102. 

Germanus of Constantinople, 
EIQ For 

Gibson, Margaret Dunlop, 88. 

God, Representations Of, 174 


sq. 

“Grave nimis’ (Apost. Consti- 
tution), 62. 

Gregory I, 106. 

Gregory XV, 63. 

Gregory, C. R., 88. 

Gregory of Nazianzus, St., 9. 

Gregory of Nyssa, St., 98, 173. 

Gregory of Tours, St., 116. 

Gregory Thaumaturgus, St., 26. 


H: 


HanpriaAn I, 164, 171, 173. 
“Hail Mary,” 135. 
Harnack, A., 158 sq. 
Harris, Rendel, 93. 
Helvidius, 96, IOT. 
Hengstenberg, 08. 
Hesychius of Jerusalem, 74. 
Hippolytus, St., 52, 150. 
Holy Family, go. 


INDEX 183 


Holy Ghost, 80. 

Hormisdas, Pope, 94. 

Hunter, S. J., 42. 

Hyperdulia, 134 sqq., 140 sqq., 
168 sq. 


I 


IcoNOCLASTS, 166, 169 sq. 

Idolatry, 162 sq. 

Ignatius of Antioch, St., 9, 44, 
102. 

Images, The veneration of, 


162 sqq. 
Immaculate 


Conception, 39 
Se 

Impeccability, 80 sqq. 

Incarnation, The, 12, 21, 31. 

“Ineffabilis Deus,’ Bull, 28, 
41 Sq. 

Innocent III, 46. 

Intercession of the B. V. Mary, 


129 sqq. 
Invocation of the saints, I41 


sqq. 
Irenzus, 102, 128. 
Tsaiasy\0,\\ 137. 


J 


JEANJACQUOT, 31. 

Jeremias, 149. 

Jerome, St., 95, 96, 100, 102, 
124, 146, 148, 173. 

Jesuits, 61. 

John a S. Thoma, 60. 

Joachim, St., 39. 


‘John Damascene, St., 10, 18, 


51, 74, 79, 95, 108, 117, 166, 


174. 

John of Antioch, 9. 

John, St. (Apostle), 143 sq. 

John the Baptist, 66. 

Jonas of Orleans, 160. 

Joseph, St., 6, 84, 87 sad, 96, 
99, 100, 103. 

Jovinian, 53, 90, 96. 

Judas Machabeeus, 149. 

Julian of Eclanum, 53. 

Justin Martyr, St., 44,49 Sd» 
85 sq. 


Juvenal of Jerusalem, 108. 


K 


Kexapirwuevn, 24 saq. 
Kolunows Hs Oeordkov Mapias, 


£15; 
L. 


LAppER of Jacob, 22 sq. 

Latria, 124 sqq., 140 sqq. 

Leo XIII, 90. 

Lewis, Agnes Smith, 88. 

a de Transitu B. M. V., 
116. 

Liberius, Pope, 137. 

Liturgies, Ancient, 7. 

Lollards, 91. 

Lorinus, 65. 

Luther, 46. 

Lyons, Canons of, 55 sq. 


M 


MartyrpomM, Mary’s spiritual, 
107. 

Martyrs, 144 sq., 150. 

Mayron, Francis, 60. 

Mary, B. V., Her divine moth- 
erhood, 3 sqq.; Her dignity 
as mother of God, 15 sqq.; 
Her divine “daughterhood,” 
18 sq.; Her titles of honor, 
18; Spouse of the Holy 
Ghost, 19; Her relation to 
her fellow-creatures, 20 sqq.; 
Her spiritual motherhood, 21 
sq.; Mary the intermediary 
between God and the world, 
22 sq.; Her fulness of grace, 
24 sqq.; Her sanctity, 28 
sqq.; Her knowledge, 31 
sq.; Had she the gifts of 
prophecy, tongues, miracles? 
32; Her progress in grace 
and virtue, 33 sq.; [The name 
“Mary,” 34 sq.; Her special 
prerogatives, 37 sqdq.; Her 
negative prerogatives, 38 
sqq.; Her Immaculate Con- 
ception, 39 sqq.; Mary the 
second Eve, 49 sqq.; Her sin- 


184 


lessness, 72 sqq.; Her per- 
petual virginity, 83 sqq.; Her 
bodily Assumption into 
Heaven, 105 sqq.; Her posi- 
tive prerogatives, 120 sqq.; 
Her cult, 133 sqa. 
“Mary,” The name, 34 sq. 
Mauritius, Emperor, 115. 
Mediatio participata, 22. 
Mediatorship, Mary’s second- 
ary, 121 sqq. 
Mediairix, 121 sqq. 
Medina, Barth. de, 60. 
Melito of Sardes, St., 
Memorare, The, 120. 
Mirjam, 35. 
Modestus of Jerusalem, 117. 
Motherhood, Mary’s Divine, 3 


sqq. | 
Mother of God, Mary the, 4 


116. 


sqq. 
Mozarabic Liturgy, 110. 
Mystical extravagances, 32 sq. 
Mystic Rose, 21. 


N 


NatTAtis, Alexander, 60. 
Nestorianism, 4 sqq., 7. 
Nestorius, 4, 7, 8, I0 sq. 
Nirschl, Jos., 106. 


O 


Ones of Solomon, 93. 
Old Catholics, 42. 
Onias, 140. 

Origen, 95, 150. 


ig 


Pau Vij-6% 

Paul, St., 144, 148, 156. 
Paulus, 84. 

Petavius, 79. 

Peter Aureolus, 60. 
Peter Lombard, 68. 
Peter, St., 32, 108, 156. 
Petrus Comestor, 66. 


INDEX 


' Pharisees, 156 sq. 

Philippus Sidetes, 8. 

Pilgrimages, 159 sq. 

Pistoja, Council of 175) 177. 

Pius: V; 62,63; 107, 

Pius VI, 175, 177. 

Pius pad 4I, 47, 64, 90. 

Plenitudo gratiae, 24 sqq., 29 
Sq., 32 sq. 40. 

Polycarp, St., 102, 157. 

Porretta, Seraphine della, 61. 

Praeredemptio, 41, 58, 59 sq. 

Presentation, 92 sq. 

Prierius, 8. 

Proclus, St., 23. 

ae The, 43 saqq., 


Pees -Areopagite, The, 106, 


Pulcheria, Empress, 108. 


Q 


QUEEN of Martyrs, 107. 
“Queen of the Heart of Jesus,” 
132, 


R 


RapHaeL, Archangel, 
Relics, 


1 149. 
Worship of holy, 153 


sqq. 
Renan, Ernest, 84. 
Ripalda, 24. 


S 


Sacerdotissa, 123. 
Saints, Worship of the, 139 


sqq. 
Schaefer, Bp., 126. 
Scheeben, 16;' 24, 32. 
Scotus, Duns, 58 sqq., 68, 76. 
Seat of Wisdom, cle 
Serpent, The, 43 sq., 113 sq. 
Simeon, 3], 79, 125. 
Simon Stylites, 173 sq. 
Sinlessness of the Blessed Vir- 
gin, 72 sqq. 
Siricius, Pope, 91, 102. 
Sixtus IV, 62 


Sa te 


sa aa 


LOSER 


ee aS a a ee Ee 


INDEX 18s 


Sonship, Christ’s twofold, 13. 

Sole: 177. 

Spina, Barth., 60. 

Spiritual Lily, 21. 

Spiritual Vessel, 21. 

Spouse of the Holy Ghost, 19, 
26. 


“Stella mars,” 35. 
Stephen, St., 29. 


Strauss, David F., 84. 3 


Suarez, 29, 40, 98, 105. 
Sylvestris, Francis a, 60. 
Syrus Sinaiticus, Codex, 88. 


< 


TERRIEN, 30. 

Tertullian, 50, 95, 145. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 4, 8. 

Theodore Studita, St., 117. 

Theodoret of Cyrus, 8, 160, 173. 

Theodotus of Ancyra, 50. 

Theonas, 8. 

Geordoxos, 4, 5, 7 $dq., II, 37, 135, 
137. 

Thomas a Kempis, 161. 

eines. (ots idee 20) 273 aha es 
33, 58 60, 67 saqq., 75, 86, 
103, 141, 151, 166 sqq., 177, 
178. 

Tobias, 140. 

Torquemada, Card., 60. 

Trinity, Representations of the, 


174 sq. 


Types of the Blessed Virgin 
in the Old Testament, 17, 


IT4, 
Typikon S. Sabae, 54. 
U 


USUARD, III. 


V 


VASQUEZ, 177. 

Vega, Christopher, 30. 

Veneration of Saints, 141 sqq.; 
of relics, 154 sqq.; of images, 
162 sqq. 

Venturini, 84. 

Vigilantius, 146, 148. 

Vincent of Beauvais, 68. 

Virgin birth of Christ, 90 sqq. 

Virginity, Mary’s perpetual, 
83 sqq. 


W 
WEGSCHEIDER, 84. 
“Woman,” The, 126 sq. 
Worship, 133 sq. 

Zz 


ZABN; Lh) 06. 
Zwinglians, 169. 


i 


Date Due 


La 


te 


| 


ll 


Library 


| 


on 


| 


Princet 


Soe aeleet eas eas 
ee ls 
Karin 


a9, 


arars 
= eacae ts : ary at pe tery tog oy 
5 “i weiss 


Sart er 
mary. 


Sarge 


of: 
Ferret 
aoe cet 3 sone aoe Spain ranean! 
ReeapateteS : Aten Aah patty teats 
Jats eter : : 
pret 
i 


See 


te 


eshte 


